Evidence of meeting #154 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 packaging.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

James D. Downham  President and Chief Executive Officer, PAC Packaging Consortium
Geneviève Dionne  Director, Eco-conception, Circular Economy, Éco Entreprises Québec
Keith Brooks  Programs Director, Environmental Defence Canada
Andrew Telfer  Vice-President, Health, Wellness and Industry Relations, Retail Council of Canada
Philippe Cantin  Senior Director, Circular Economy and Sustainable Innovation, Montreal Office, Retail Council of Canada
Dan Lantz  Director, Sustainability, PAC Packaging Consortium
Vito Buonsante  Plastic Program Manager, Environmental Defence Canada

5 p.m.

Liberal

Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON

Right.

5 p.m.

Director, Sustainability, PAC Packaging Consortium

Dan Lantz

—solve the garbage problem, then bring that up so it's level.

The other thing, too, is the cost of making a recycled package—or pellets, whatever—is about 20% higher than the cost of oil. I'm not suggesting that you go and raise the price of oil to match it so that we have a level playing field, but you could subsidize it through grants or whatever, to say, “Listen, now do this”.

The other thing you could control at a federal level is packaging for all goods. That you have the control over. You could say that packaging has to have a minimum of 25%, the same as X. The EU is 35%, the U.K. is 30%. You say, “Now, you have to match world standards”. If you do that—and that you can control—then all of a sudden it will raise the bar up for everybody and they'll say, “Okay, I've got to do this, and I'll go get it”.

5 p.m.

Liberal

Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON

Okay.

Sorry, I just have two more quick questions. I would like to give you a chance as well to add what may not have already been presented.

5 p.m.

Director, Eco-conception, Circular Economy, Éco Entreprises Québec

Geneviève Dionne

The only thing I would add is that everything we've talked about needs to be done in conjunction with industry and the scientific community. What lawmakers focus on is regulation and standardization, but it has to be fact-based to ensure the right substitutions or changes in behaviour are made.

5 p.m.

Liberal

Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON

There are two other issues that haven't been addressed—and this is something that I drill on all the time. I like to call it 3RU, instead of what we call the three Rs today. It's reduce, repair, reuse, upcycle. We've got to stop think about defaulting to recycling every time we look at anything. When you think of recycling, it's downcycling. You're not thinking of the value that's in that good.

We haven't really delved into this. The first order is reduction. All we've really talked about here today is recycling, recycling, EPR and bans and all the rest of that. How do we reduce the amount of packaging? If we are reducing through repair and reuse, then how do we ensure that we capture that, those [Inaudible-Editor]? Those are the other two areas—reduction and the capture of it.

5 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal John Aldag

We're out of time, but I will let one person make a brief response.

5 p.m.

Director, Eco-conception, Circular Economy, Éco Entreprises Québec

Geneviève Dionne

Quickly, I can tell you that there are strategies. Repair is much more focused on product sustainability than on packaging. Some eco-design and circular economy strategies don't necessarily lend themselves to packaging. Reduction at the source is definitely the way to go. That's why we provide training and guidance to companies when it comes to reducing packaging or optimizing the recycling process. It's necessary to rethink how products are brought to the market. Can the packaging be removed? Can they be packaged differently?

Certain types of packaging or certain sizes of products will probably end up having to be adapted. People can choose from products in one, two or four millilitre sizes, but maybe they don't need all those sizes. That's something to think about as well. There is a big focus on single-use consumer products, so that means a lot of products with disposable packaging are sold in small sizes and quantities. That's really something to think about. Looking at the earlier phases of product development is key.

5 p.m.

Liberal

Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON

The final thing I was going to say is around importation—if somebody could reply to it. That's a huge issue. How do we do extended producer responsibility and ensure that all of the materials are recyclable if we can't manage the importation of it?

5 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal John Aldag

Mike, instead of getting an answer right now—

5 p.m.

Liberal

Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON

I'll save that for later.

5 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal John Aldag

I'm just looking at the time. We'll go to Wayne for his final question.

We do have a little bit of time on the clock and we may be able to go back for one more round, if there is interest from the committee.

Wayne, over to you for your final three minutes.

5 p.m.

NDP

Wayne Stetski NDP Kootenay—Columbia, BC

Thank you.

I have two quick questions for Environmental Defence and the Packaging Consortium.

For Environmental Defence, you talked about government setting high standards. Things like single-use plastics are perhaps fairly easy to identify, but when we talk about high standards, there are so many different kinds of products. There are children's toys and electronics, etc. Are those high standards to be set by product or by the type of plastic that goes into making those products? I don't know whether they're the same or different.

For the packaging people, you showed a great chart at the start about recycling in landfills by product. Does your organization pay any attention to things like looking at whatever is being produced and saying that it doesn't have to be done in plastic; it can be done in a material that is already being recycled and kept out of landfills? Would you ever serve that role amongst your customers?

5:05 p.m.

Programs Director, Environmental Defence Canada

Keith Brooks

The answer to your question about products versus materials is sometimes one and sometimes the other. There are certain plastic products that we use that are totally unnecessary . The single-use plastic ban in the EU really targeted those things.Those are some of these plastic bags, cutlery, plates and things like that that we just don't need. We can't continue to have more and more of this plastic being produced all the time to get to the reduction point. We need to figure out the plastics that are unnecessary and for which alternatives exist and get them out. Ban those plastics.

We would also say we're going to ban certain types of plastics, such as those that are toxic and those that cannot be recycled. You could add a third criteria and say those that end up in the environment in great degree. That's why we're going at those single-use plastics. It's not a one size fits all; it's a bunch of different reasons and methodologies for sorting out what needs to be banned.

5:05 p.m.

President and Chief Executive Officer, PAC Packaging Consortium

James D. Downham

That's really good question. I have been around in Ontario drinking beer for a long time, so I know this system real well.

I think this is the best way to answer your question. Look at the way beer was marketed in Ontario through the Beer Store. The Beer Store is owned by the brewers. Basically, they went into that business in 1925 because of prohibition. I wasn't around then. They were forced into it. It was all about distribution and recovery.

The Beer Store was set up so you go to the Beer Store, buy your beer, take it home, put the box in the corner, put the bottles back in there and then you take the box back. That's the way it was in Ontario, with standard bottles, a standard 24 pack and standard cans—standard everything.

But guess what's happening? Laws are changing. The brewers are not changing; the laws are changing. The first thing they did in Ontario was that the Liberal government said that they're going to start to sell those products into the LCBO, but it can only sell this amount. That disrupts the distribution and recovery system. You still pay a deposit on that bottle, but if you buy a six-pack in the liquor store, you're probably not going to take it back to the Beer Store, and that's what happens. It ends up in the garbage or in the waste stream and it could contaminate the blue box.

Now another law is coming in from the Ontario government. The other guys—the Conservatives—are now going to start selling it in convenient stores. The greatest model in the world—the Beer Store, which has been around forever—is going to be disrupted dramatically because of regulation.

I'll leave that with you as a cautionary tale. It's true. Those recovery rates are so huge and the reason it's being disrupted is that all of the other beers are now coming in from all over the world. Guess what? They come in different formats. They come in different glass bottles. They come in different closures. There's no standard beer bottle anymore. There's no standard beer case of 24 or 12 or six. It's all changing. You just can't control it.

5:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal John Aldag

That takes us to the end of our formal round of questioning.

I'm looking for direction from both the committee and our guests. Our invitation to our panellists was to be here until 5:15. I don't know if anybody is available. We're scheduled to go until 5:30.

Does anybody need to leave right at 5:15, or if there is interest from the committee to continue to 5:30, would you be willing to stay?

5:05 p.m.

A voice

I'm good.

5:05 p.m.

A voice

Yes.

5:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal John Aldag

Then for the committee, we could each do a five-minute round per side, if you're interested in continuing and have any unanswered questions. If you feel that you've been satisfied, then we can end at this point. What's the will of the committee?

5:05 p.m.

Liberal

Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON

I could certainly ask about importation.

5:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal John Aldag

So you would take some time.

Do you guys have anything that you would like to add?

Wayne, do you want to do another one?

5:10 p.m.

NDP

Wayne Stetski NDP Kootenay—Columbia, BC

I'm sure we could.

5:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal John Aldag

Okay, let's do that.

Mike, perhaps you can start, and any of your colleagues who want to jump in. We'll give you five minutes.

5:10 p.m.

Liberal

Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON

I have two questions.

One is, as I asked earlier, around importation. If we're going to do extended producer responsibility, if we're going to do harmonization and if we're going to regulate recyclability, how do we do that in a world where the global supply chain doesn't necessarily follow the same rules?

5:10 p.m.

Director, Eco-conception, Circular Economy, Éco Entreprises Québec

Geneviève Dionne

It can be a function of the strength of the Canadian market. Under extended producer responsibility programs, I've seen countries deny market access to products because they didn't meet EU packaging directive requirements. That directive has in fact become an ISO standard. I've seen countries including the Czech Republic and the United Kingdom issue penalties or refuse market access outright. I'm not sure whether Canada is a big enough player globally to be in a position to refuse market access to products that fail to meet its requirements, but I think it's something that should be examined. It's definitely something to think about. If Canada does not want to allow certain materials, products or packaging in its market, it needs to put its money where its mouth is.

5:10 p.m.

Liberal

Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON

Mr. Downham or Mr. Lantz, I'm sure you have something you'd like to say on that front.