Evidence of meeting #151 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was industry.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
You had a minute and a half extra.
I know a couple of people have been making eye contact with me, trying to figure out what's going on. We had said we were going to go until five o'clock with witnesses. We need to go for some in camera committee business, but we do have a bit of time. I don't need the full half hour, so we will go to Mr. Stetski for the last round of questions. He is given three minutes, so if you can bear with me for one more round, then we'll wrap it up.
Wayne, it's over to you.
NDP
Wayne Stetski NDP Kootenay—Columbia, BC
I'll try to get in two questions.
First of all, Mr. Masterson or Ms. Des Chênes, the report we had from department officials, if I remember correctly, said that the second most littered plastic was cigarette butts. There are several trillion cigarette butts littered every year, and there are plastics in the filter part of those cigarettes. Are you aware of any initiatives, either by your industry or the tobacco industry, to potentially come up with some recycling of cigarette butts?
There is an attitude issue, as you know, first of all. Our lakes, our rivers, our sidewalks are not ashtrays and should not be used as such, but they are. So there is an attitude thing, but what about industry perspective on cigarette butts, if any?
President and Chief Executive Officer, Chemistry Industry Association of Canada
I don't think that we are in a position to answer that at this time. Perhaps the tobacco industry might be better, but I think we're part of that value chain and we can find the people who can get an answer to you.
NDP
Wayne Stetski NDP Kootenay—Columbia, BC
If you could look into that, I would really appreciate that.
My second question is for Mr. Ross, and it's partly about attitudes as well, particularly with the Strait of Georgia. Have you looked into the source of the plastics that are going into the Strait of Georgia? There is recreational fishing, commercial fishing, industry, ships coming in and out of the harbour. Whose attitude needs to change? Who needs to be educated for a different outcome going forward?
Director, Ocean Pollution Research Program, Ocean Wise
I think I can safely say that it's our opinion that it's all of us. We are all contributing to this problem, and we all have to increase our awareness and understanding of the issue and to step up.
If we look at Canadian shoreline cleanup data, we can find identifiable items like plastic beverage bottles, cigarette butts, bottle caps or sometimes pieces of polymer fragments, so there is clearly a consumer element to that, coming from activities on or in the water, or upstream in the watershed.
We know that there is a heavy aquaculture and commercial fishing fleet, and there are a lot of efforts right now to evaluate the potential role they play in releasing, surreptitiously or deliberately sometimes, plastics into the receiving environments.
A lot more awareness there.... I think this is a good opportunity for education, in particular with the activities on the water.
In terms of microplastics, one of the interesting discoveries we made is that in the Strait of Georgia we have over 3,000 particles of plastic in every cubic metre of sea-water. These are all microplastics, smaller than five millimetres. Most of those, 75% of those are fibres.
In our extensive surveys up in the Arctic with Fisheries and Oceans Canada and One Ocean Expeditions where we are collecting sea-water, we find that 91% of the microplastics up in the Arctic in sea-water are fibres. The majority of these, in both situations, are polyester.
So we are very interested in furthering our very good work with the textile makers and apparel retailers, and our work with the waste-water treatment plant operators, because we're really finding a significant release of microfibres into local waters from the clothing that we are washing.
Wayne Stetski NDP Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Just quickly then, since I've been given a little more time, do you think the federal government has a role in setting standards going forward, for example for what's coming out of some of the sewage treatment plants?
Director, Ocean Pollution Research Program, Ocean Wise
I think there's certainly a role to encourage monitoring through liquid waste discharge permits at the provincial scale, but also in studying what ends up in the plant versus what goes to biosolids or solid waste, because there is that distinction. Based on our initial study last year, my fear is that a lot of the microplastics are going into biosolids, which are then redistributed on land as fertilizer in agroforestry operations.
Yes, there's absolutely a role for the federal government to better understand and step in here under existing regulations and requirements for waste-water treatment plant operators.
I think there's also a great opportunity for Ottawa leadership in trying to nurture innovation to better understand this and identify solutions. We run into a lot of industry players who didn't think they were culprits in some kind of bad story in the ocean, so they're stepping up very seriously and responsibly. They want answers; they want solutions, but often understanding the full nature of the issue is a little beyond their financial realm.
Encouraging discovery, innovation, best practices, green design—I think there's a really good opportunity for Canada to continue on its path of leadership with regard to the plastic pollution crisis.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
Okay, that's good. Thanks.
That ends this particular panel. I'd like to thank each of the witnesses for being here. You've given us more great information on our fairly abbreviated study on a very large issue. We're hoping our report will be out sometime in early June.
I'm going to suspend the meeting. We'll get anybody who is not a member or a staff member of a member to clear the room. We're going to go in camera for some committee business.
[Proceedings continue in camera]
