<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div style="margin: 0in; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><b class=""><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Georgia, serif;" class="">U.S. industry lobby targeting Canada's proposed plastics ban<o:p class=""></o:p></span></b></div><div style="margin: 0in; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Georgia, serif;" class="">By Maura Forrest, Politico PRO</span><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;" class=""> </span></div><div style="margin: 0in; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Georgia, serif;" class="">10/07/2020<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><p style="margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0in;" class=""><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Georgia, serif;" class="">OTTAWA — Lobbyists for the American plastics industry have set their sights on Canada’s proposed single-use plastics ban, even as Environment Minister Jonathan Wilkinson on Wednesday unveiled a preliminary list of banned items that includes plastic bags, straws and utensils.<o:p class=""></o:p></span></p><div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.9375rem 0px 0px; font-size: 1.125rem;" class=""><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Georgia, serif;" class="">In a recent letter obtained by POLITICO that was sent to International Trade Minister Mary Ng and several other federal ministers, including Wilkinson, nearly 70 American industry groups claim that any ban on plastic products manufactured in the U.S. “clearly meets the definition of a non-tariff barrier” and could violate Canada’s obligations under the USMCA and the World Trade Organization. The groups, which include the American Chemistry Council, the Plastics Industry Association and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, argue a ban could affect more than $12.1 billion in U.S. exports to Canada. They also claim Ottawa hasn’t consulted with the U.S. or other close trading partners.<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><p style="margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0in; box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 1.125rem;" class=""><b class=""><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Georgia, serif;" class="">Point of contention:<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span></b><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Georgia, serif;" class="">Central to the issue is Canada’s plan to designate plastic as toxic under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, or CEPA, which would then allow the government to ban certain single-use products. The U.S. groups say that designation isn’t based on sound science and would have “grave consequences” for trade between the two countries.<o:p class=""></o:p></span></p><div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.9375rem 0px 0px; font-size: 1.125rem;" class=""><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Georgia, serif;" class="">Asked about the issue during a press conference on Wednesday, Wilkinson dismissed the warning. “I think those concerns that are being expressed are simply wrong,” he said. “This proposal is really focused on ensuring that we’re treating all products, irrespective of whether they’re manufactured here or elsewhere … in the same way. I do not see a trade concern.”<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.9375rem 0px 0px; font-size: 1.125rem;" class=""><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Georgia, serif;" class="">He added that if the groups have concerns, “they should reach out and contact us and I’d be happy to ensure that they are briefed.”<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.9375rem 0px 0px; font-size: 1.125rem;" class=""><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Georgia, serif;" class="">His office told POLITICO that the government will be launching consultations on the proposed ban, including with trade partners.<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.9375rem 0px 0px; font-size: 1.125rem;" class=""><b class=""><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Georgia, serif;" class="">Plastics and the USMCA:</span></b><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Georgia, serif;" class=""> </span></span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Georgia, serif;" class="">A spokesperson for Ng said the government takes its trade relationship with the U.S. very seriously. “Our work to ban single use plastics will respect all our commitments in the new NAFTA,” Youmy Han said in an email. “As per our government’s approach to trade, the new NAFTA in no way prevents Canada from taking strong action to protect the environment.”<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.9375rem 0px 0px; font-size: 1.125rem;" class=""><b class=""><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Georgia, serif;" class="">What Canada plans to ban:<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span></b><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Georgia, serif;" class="">On Wednesday, Wilkinson revealed details of the government’s plan to reach zero plastic waste by 2030, including a proposed ban on six single-use plastic items: bags, straws, stir sticks, six-pack rings, cutlery and food containers made from expanded polystyrene. Ottawa is also planning to impose recycled content requirements in plastic products and packaging.<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.9375rem 0px 0px; font-size: 1.125rem;" class=""><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Georgia, serif;" class="">Wilkinson said the six banned products were chosen because they cause harm when they end up in the environment, they’re difficult and costly to recycle and there are readily available alternatives. Asked whether the government is going far enough by banning only six items — a list that doesn’t include disposable coffee cups, for example — Wilkinson said the ban is only one part of the Liberals’ plan, which will focus heavily on improving plastic recycling. “The ban is really on those things that are very difficult to recycle, and therefore we feel that they should be taken out of circulation,” he said.<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.9375rem 0px 0px; font-size: 1.125rem;" class=""><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Georgia, serif;" class="">Wilkinson said only nine percent of plastic waste is currently recycled in Canada, but he declined to say what Canada’s recycling target should be. Those targets will be developed during the consultation period with provinces and territories, he said.<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.9375rem 0px 0px; font-size: 1.125rem;" class=""><b class=""><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Georgia, serif;" class="">Talking trash — and trade concerns:</span></b><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Georgia, serif;" class=""> </span></span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Georgia, serif;" class="">Industry groups in Canada and the U.S. have raised concerns about labeling plastics as “toxic,” however. “Consumers would assume that everyday and essential products that contain plastic are now toxic; companies would face uncertainty in the marketplace regarding whether they can export to and sell their products in Canada,” reads the letter sent to Ng, which is dated Sept. 21.<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.9375rem 0px 0px; font-size: 1.125rem;" class=""><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Georgia, serif;" class="">Lawrence Herman, an international trade lawyer with Herman & Associates in Toronto, said the letter amounts to “saber-rattling,” and that the USMCA allows for measures designed to protect the environment. “As long as they are not disguised trade barriers, they’re perfectly legitimate,” he told POLITICO. Herman also pointed out that several states have already passed their own plastic bag bans. “The U.S. plastics industry is doing its best to counter all kinds of environmental measures,” he said. “This is just huffing and puffing and I don’t think they have a case at all.”<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.9375rem 0px 0px; font-size: 1.125rem;" class=""><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Georgia, serif;" class="">Herman said it’s very unlikely that a Democratic government would consider launching a trade action against Canada over a plastics ban, though he conceded it’s harder to predict “what a Trump administration might do.”<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.9375rem 0px 0px; font-size: 1.125rem;" class=""><b class=""><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Georgia, serif;" class="">Warnings from the provinces:<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span></b><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Georgia, serif;" class="">Still, there’s opposition to the plastics ban in Canada as well, including from some provinces. In March, Alberta Environment Minister Jason Nixon wrote to Wilkinson warning that designating plastics as toxic would send a “chilling message” to global investors in the province’s petrochemical industry. His office told POLITICO this week that Ottawa “would do well to remember” that single-use plastics have been “indispensable” during the pandemic.<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.9375rem 0px 0px; font-size: 1.125rem;" class=""><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Georgia, serif;" class="">On Wednesday, Wilkinson stressed that the plastics ban “will not affect access to PPE” critical to the Covid-19 response.<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.9375rem 0px 0px; font-size: 1.125rem;" class=""><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Georgia, serif;" class="">He also said the CEPA label is simply a tool the government has to allow it to regulate plastics, and is not meant to imply that plastics are toxic in the traditional sense of the word. He pointed out that greenhouse gases are also listed as toxic. “If the issue is a nomenclature issue, we’re willing to address that question,” he said.<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.9375rem 0px 0px; font-size: 1.125rem;" class=""><b class=""><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Georgia, serif;" class="">What's next:</span></b><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Georgia, serif;" class=""> </span></span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Georgia, serif;" class="">The Liberal government is looking for feedback until Dec. 9 on a new discussion paper that outlines its plan, and is aiming to finalize the new regulations by the end of 2021.</span></div><div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.9375rem 0px 0px; font-size: 1.125rem;" class=""><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Georgia, serif;" class=""><br class=""></span></div><div class="">
Arthur Stamoulis<br class="">Citizens Trade Campaign<br class="">(202) 494-8826<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">
</div>
<br class=""></body></html>