Environment Committee on April 10th, 2019

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have something to add.

I have a question for you, Mr. Masterson. You said in your opening remarks that 100% of plastic packaging should be recyclable or recoverable by 2030. Is that realistic? It's one thing to announce targets, but another thing to reach them.

[Isabelle Des Chênes]

We would say yes.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

I was sure you would answer that, but let's be honest.

[Isabelle Des Chênes]

We decided on 2030 because it gives us the chance to study and market the technology needed to achieve our goal. In some cases, the technology doesn't exist yet. Are we absolutely sure that we'll succeed? The answer is no, because this is a major challenge for us.

We've been working on this goal for a few years now. We want to have the technology needed to recycle any product, including chemically, and to reuse or recover the product. Given our time frame, we can work on this technology.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

I gather that the current technology and manufacturing formulas can't produce 100% recyclable or reusable plastic. Is that correct?

[Isabelle Des Chênes]

The plastics or the capacities do exist. However, manufacturers must meet certain criteria when packaging their products. For example, if a container must provide health and safety guarantees, the container may be made from non-recyclable plastic. That said, our companies are working on solving this problem.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

I must interrupt you, Ms. Des Chênes. I gather that there's a domino effect. For example, a consumer buys a soft drink at an affordable price from a producer that uses a certain type of container. Until the producer requires 100% recyclable or reusable containers, you won't necessarily make the effort to develop and market those products.

[Isabelle Des Chênes]

Not at all, Mr. Godin.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Ms. Dzerowicz, we'll move over to you now for six minutes.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

One of the things I heard fairly consistently in all presentations was education, education, education. If I had to ask each one of you to make a recommendation specifically on that, what would that be? I'll start with you, Mr. Masterson. Then I'll go to Mr. Goetz, and then to our colleague on the phone, Mr. Ross.

[Bob Masterson]

Is that in the context of the federal government or municipal governments?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

It would be in terms of the federal government.

[Bob Masterson]

I think the federal government could provide more information to consumers about the materials that can be recycled and the best way to allow them to be recycled. Some beverage containers—and Mr. Goetz can talk about this better—are best recycled if the contents are emptied out so that people aren't worried about the material that's in there, for instance. Clearly it's about what types of materials could be recycled, but I think that education needs to take place not just with individual Canadians but also with municipalities.

In response to that last question of whether we can get there, the answer is that 100% we will not get there if we continue on the current path we're on. We do treat post-consumer materials as waste. Municipalities themselves have to be encouraged and educated to think of these as valuable materials. If we continue to manage them as waste within narrow municipal geographies, we'll come nowhere near reaching our goals.

British Columbia has a very interesting system, in which municipalities have been educated. There's buy-in to create that economy of scale in which materials can be used.

I think the federal government has a strong role, not just with individual Canadians—that's important—but also with municipalities, to talk about what's necessary to create a viable infrastructure so we can achieve these goals.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Would you add anything, Mr. Goetz?

[Jim Goetz]

That's a really good question. Obviously, industry has a big part to play in this, and we are willing to step up, as everyone else on the panel has said today.

When it comes particularly to the consumer product goods side of the plastics debate, there is a big part for the consumers to play as well, and I would point to two things. In Ontario, for example, there is no harmonization of blue box programs across the province. In certain communities, you can put certain things in the blue box or recycling bin; in other ones you can't. That creates consumer confusion, and eventually someone is just going to pitch something in the garbage bin because they don't know where it goes, or they put the wrong materials in the blue box, which speaks to what, I think, Mr. Cullen said before about contamination.

On the second item, I would point to Ontario again. There has been no province-wide education program about recycling since the 1970s, when the blue box was put in place. Municipalities obviously do some. With the beverage industry, for example, in Manitoba right now with our new program, recycle everywhere, we're spending $1.50 per Manitoban on public education. You can't go anywhere without seeing our recycle everywhere logo, which has 90% recognition, which means it is the second most recognized logo in Manitoba, just slightly below that of the Winnipeg Jets.

Education plays a really big part in this, and that's the way you get the consumers to have more skin in the game: harmonization as well as education.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Great.

Mr. Ross, would you add anything?

[Peter Ross]

Sure. Thank you very much.

When we talk about education and we combine it with plastic, we create a very complicated spectrum of opportunities in Canada. The first thing I would say is, let's talk about plastic.

Plastic is in all walks of life. We at Ocean Wise espouse a “plastic wise” approach—that is, the smart use of plastic. Plastic is a finite resource. Let's treasure it. Let's value it. Let's close the loop on that plastic economy. So, plastic wise is our approach to defining the problem or the issue.

In terms of education, we're very keen on individuals of all walks of life, because educating consumers and individuals is going to be very, very important. But those consumers and individuals won't be able to vote with their wallets when they choose products unless they have proper consumer labelling and recyclable materials, as well as, in many cases—

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Just to be clear on that, the recommendation to the federal government would be to ask for proper labelling of plastics in products. Does that not happen right now? I get number 7 for recycling, number 5, number 3.... There are different numbers, and then there are different numbers that can actually be recycled depending on where you are. Is that not happening already?

[Peter Ross]

That is one kind of categorization, but if you're wearing polyester clothing or nylon clothing, there's no recycling of that, and there's no labelling of that. If you have plastic packaging, a lot of the single-use disposable plastic packaging is not labelled.

The problem with plastics right now is that the very simple but effective approach to categorizing the seven types of plastic often fails to incorporate the issue of adulteration through chemical additives, dyes and other things that reduce the recyclability and value of that material.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Okay, thank you.

I don't mean to ignore you, Mr. Cullen, but I think that you made an initial point that at the federal level we can create consistency across all the provinces, and I think we're hearing some of that.

If you have anything to add, do it very quickly, because I do have one more question.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

The federal government has a great deal of interaction with the municipalities through the FCM, and the sponsorship of various programs could come, coupled with some of the information that municipalities.... They're busy people, or they're elected for two or three years and they simply don't know. Many municipal leaders aren't aware, within their own municipality, what their recycling rates are, and I think a report card system from the federal government, when handing out money, might not be a bad idea.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Okay, that's helpful.

I just have one quick question. I am very interested in the toxins that are produced by plastics and the use of some plastics. We see that they end up in the oceans and they're toxic to other life forms.

In terms of looking at the chemicals and trying to reduce plastics, but also maybe reduce their toxicity, is that something that's actually looked at? Is there a role for the federal government in reducing the toxicity of plastics that we use?

[Bob Masterson]

Again, I would say yes, and yes. You do that, and you do that very well. Canada's chemicals management plan is the top one, or certainly in the top two, of all chemicals management plans anywhere in the world.

I gave you a brief list of plastic-specific chemicals that have been assessed and found toxic in certain applications, where risk management actions have been initiated by the Government of Canada: BPA, phthalates, flame retardants, dyes, pigments, microbeads in personal care products, and 350 different plastic polymers, just to begin with.

We could give you a very extensive list of all the regulatory actions the Government of Canada has taken on chemicals that are used in the plastic industry.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

You're saying we're among the best in the world.

Mr. Ross, how—

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Sorry, we're out of time now. It's six minutes.