Evidence of meeting #153 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 waste.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
We're going to move over to Mr. Fast now for his six minutes of questions.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
I just want to dispel this notion that there are some people, either around this table or in governments in Canada, who are not interested at all in addressing the issue of plastics pollution.
Mr. Amos is quite incorrect. My sense from the governments across Canada, and certainly the people around this table, is that there's a very keen interest in addressing plastics pollution because of the impact it will have on our environment and on our children, grandchildren and future generations of Canadians.
My first question is for Dow Chemical. I haven't heard you take a position on a proposed ban on single-use plastics. I'd be interested to hear your take on that.
4:45 p.m.
Vice-President, Dow
As a corporation, we don't think that bans are effective. There's been very limited data on the banning of single-use plastics. The definition of single-use plastics isn't universally known. People usually think about it as plastic bottles and cutlery, but there's a car bumper that we manufacture. Dow is one of the world's largest manufacturers of polyethylene. Most of the products that we manufacture are high-value plastic products. We typically don't get into the single-use disposable plastic bags.
We see all plastic as recyclable. I see there has been a lot of discussion around here about recycled plastic. All plastic can be recycled. Some plastics can be recycled substantially more easily than others. We don't see bans as a mechanism going forward; we see an advanced collection and recovery process where plastic is seen as a resource, not a waste.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Could I ask either of you to comment on the addition of microbeads to the toxic chemicals list?
May 1st, 2019 / 4:45 p.m.
W. Scott Thurlow Senior Advisor, Government Affairs, Dow
It's been a very interesting discussion about this particular subject because what the House of Commons voted on in 2014 and what the House of Commons got after 2014 are very different. Industry came to the House of Commons and said that they recommended some type of a risk management measure be developed to eliminate microplastics from cosmetic products specifically. The reason for that was that products coming from China had a particular attribute, which had a great deal of those microplastics, but what happened after the motion was voted on in the House of Commons was that Environment Canada and Health Canada didn't define them as microplastics in cosmetic products. They defined them based on their size, which captured every single polymer of a certain size and below, which was not what the House of Commons voted on, was not the intention of Parliament, and was not what was part of that debate.
What it tells us is that there is a need to reform CEPA to be very clear so that we can have targeted, purposeful listings under the toxic substances list based on use and on the attributes that actually pose the risk in question. When we hear about adding plastics or single-use plastics to the list of toxic substances, when I review the act, I don't think those meet the definition of “substances”, which are the molecules that the chemicals management plan was designed to deal with. Now, for an array of reasons Health Canada, Environment Canada and the Department of Justice don't agree that this is something that can happen right now, so we recommended during the CEPA review—and we would recommend again now—that this would be a reason to amend CEPA to create that specific power.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Mr. Valiante, will mechanical recycling and chemical recycling, if you consider those two processes together, capture all plastics?
4:45 p.m.
Senior Policy Analyst, Corporate Policy Group, Smart Prosperity Institute
It's not uncommon for recyclers that have traditionally done mechanical recycling to start partnering with innovators in the chemical recycling sector so they can provide a portfolio of approaches to deal with the wide range of plastics that are out there.
Again, these are recycling strategies. As you move up in stringency and say that when you start dismantling a vehicle and you're taking plastic parts out or shredding the vehicle, you have to recycle the plastics, there will be strategies for sorting those plastics so they can be recycled. There will then be mechanical recycling of some of them and there will be chemical recycling, so you'll get a concerted effort through that reverse supply chain of taking that waste plastic and turning it into recycled plastic, and you'll need a tool box of different approaches to sorting and then different types of recycling processes.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
You're saying those two processes would capture pretty well all plastics, including those that my colleague Mr. Lloyd referred to, which are plastic products with some colouring or paint on them. Those processes will take care of those products?
4:45 p.m.
Senior Policy Analyst, Corporate Policy Group, Smart Prosperity Institute
Sure. If you're gasifying something at high energy and turning it into its molecular building blocks, you can then take out the impurities and then just recover the hydrocarbons and reform them back into plastics, and that's what you're trying to achieve.
It's not perfect today, but with the right incentives there will be innovation to get to the point where we will theoretically be able to handle all the plastics that we put on the market today.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
Senior Policy Analyst, Corporate Policy Group, Smart Prosperity Institute
On carbon engineering, what I was talking—
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
My question was how companies like Carbon Engineering and Merlin Plastics and other companies that are in this space can contribute to actually solving the plastics pollution crisis.
4:50 p.m.
Senior Policy Analyst, Corporate Policy Group, Smart Prosperity Institute
If we as a society say that we want to keep plastics out of the waste stream and out of the environment and we put these policies in place, those companies will respond to the market demand for more recycling by making the investments they need to make. We talked about how to get capital to them. Another thing you can do is to have accelerated depreciation on capital, which is very helpful, and then create demand for what they're producing and create supply by having these EPR systems that produce clean streams of material that can go to these recycling facilities.
If you start to say you want low-carbon plastics and you put a value on those by saying we're going to incentivize the use of renewable plastics as a feedstock, Carbon Engineering will stop producing diesel fuel and will start producing methanol that can be used to produced ethylene.
Again it's about creating demand for recycling activities and for what recycling activities produce.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Joe Peschisolido Liberal Steveston—Richmond East, BC
I, as well, would like to thank the guests for their testimonies.
Mr. Valiante, you talked about creating a different way to give coffee to folks when people are getting their coffee.
Mr. Sandborn, I think you made the statement that encapsulates the discussion or debate on whether our strategy ought to be a reduction and reuse approach versus a recycling approach.
I will open it up to all of the four guests to comment on that discussion. Is it an either-or? Can we do both?
Mr. Valiante can begin, then Mr. Sandborn, and we'll go around the table.
4:50 p.m.
Senior Policy Analyst, Corporate Policy Group, Smart Prosperity Institute
Right now, with disposal of plastic virtually unpriced, there's no incentive to look at any of the R's. When you start to put in requirements to collect and recycle, as I said earlier, at some point you might look at a certain product and say, “Yes, we can collect it and recycle it, but the costs of collecting it in this way are very, very high, despite the fact that we can recycle it. Maybe we can deliver this product in a different way.”
I'll give you an example. In the grocery industry, there has been a move away from single-use cardboard cartons to multi-use plastic totes for produce. The tote is used once, is washed, and then is sent back to the farmer where produce goes in. That tote makes a number of trips. You're amortizing the cost of making that plastic over a number of reuses, just like a refillable beer bottle.
That only becomes economical when you have to pay the full cost of disposing of things and the full cost of making—
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Joe Peschisolido Liberal Steveston—Richmond East, BC
Is that what you meant when you talked about—I forget how you phrased it—monetizing plastic waste?
4:50 p.m.
Senior Policy Analyst, Corporate Policy Group, Smart Prosperity Institute
Essentially, you're putting a price on disposing of it.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
4:50 p.m.
Legal Director, Environmental Law Centre, University of Victoria , As an Individual
I agree with Mr. Valiante that the economics of this are critical. There does need to be a price on plastic that's too cheap and, therefore, gets wasted. In our report, we do talk about the possibility of the federal government's taxing the plastic so that it's not wasted.
I do think that the ideal needs to be reduction and reuse first. Theoretically, we can say that chemical recycling—which to my understanding is not really done at industrial scale right now, as we're kind of at the beginning of thinking about this as a technology that will be useful and is being promised as the solution here—is still going to have the problem of collecting all of the plastic. You could theoretically recycle 100% if you could gather it all, but there's going to be all sorts of plastic that gets thrown away, thrown in the garbage, thrown on the street or wherever.
It also doesn't deal with the climate change impact of doubling our plastic production every 20 years and then moving to 20% of our greenhouse gases coming from the plastic industry.
What I would encourage you to do is think about what Procter & Gamble and some of the toiletry companies are now proposing with the Loop system. It is an ideal kind of reduction and reuse system where they are talking about having toiletries that are sold in bulk in grocery stores put into reusable containers that consumers can fill up, use at home and then go back and fill up again.
That is the key to a successful approach.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Joe Peschisolido Liberal Steveston—Richmond East, BC
Mr. Sandborn, if not plastic, what do we use? Mr. Valiante made the point that plastic is cheap. You have economies of scale with the petrochemical industry. So, if not plastic, what else? Where can we evolve?
4:55 p.m.
Legal Director, Environmental Law Centre, University of Victoria , As an Individual
We can use plastic if it's reused. I think that in the Loop system they will probably be using plastic containers, but they will be reusing them. Then there are other materials that can be used that may not have all the negative impacts of plastic.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Joe Peschisolido Liberal Steveston—Richmond East, BC
I'd like to talk a little, if I have some time, Mr. Chair, about the microplastic issue. Like the chair, I was also a bit concerned about all the microplastic in our water.
Perhaps we can have Madame Rochman elaborate a little bit on that.
4:55 p.m.
Assistant Professor, University of Toronto, As an Individual
On which aspect of microplastic?
