Environment Committee on April 12th, 2021

[Sophie Langlois-Blouin]

As I mentioned, the bill was passed last March. The next step will be the adoption of regulations that will make it all happen, which is how extended producer responsibility will work in Quebec.

In the case of the refundable deposit and selective collection, all companies will market containers, packaging, printed matter and newspapers. We are talking about paper, cardboard, plastics, glass, metal and returnable beverage containers. The companies will be responsible for the entire chain, in other words, both what they market and, more importantly, the end-of-life management of products.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

This is indeed the principle of extended producer responsibility. But, what about your organization?

I'm trying to determine what is the responsibility of Quebec and the provinces and what is federal.

[Sophie Langlois-Blouin]

As I mentioned, RECYC-QUÉBEC is a government corporation. In Quebec, we oversee extended responsibility programs. The regulatory framework includes monitoring and annual reporting. It is RECYC-QUÉBEC's role to ensure that the organizations responsible for implementing effective measures to achieve the objectives set by the government do so and report annually.

When targeted results are not achieved, there are penalties and an obligation to reinvest, including in the system.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Can you tell me what the needs of the recycling industry will be in the short and medium term?

What are the most productive initiatives that would enable the sector to move more quickly into the circular economy?

We know that subsidies are provided upstream. How can we achieve this shift to the circular economy quickly?

[Sophie Langlois-Blouin]

There are three components. First of all, there must be investment in local packaging or recycling capabilities, whether in Quebec or in Canada. These are some of the solutions that have a leveraging effect.

Then, we need to encourage the integration of recycled content in products, perhaps even make it mandatory. By having our markets in Quebec and Canada, we make sure the loop is as short as possible.

Finally, products that are better designed and incorporate recycled content should be favoured in government or other procurement practices. It's about making sure that we not only close the loop on recycling and incorporating recycled content into products, but also that those products are favoured over those that don't have recycled content.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you, Ms. Langlois-Blouin.

My next questions are for Ms. Rochman.

First, thank you, Ms. Rochman, for your studies on today's topic. I am thinking particularly of microplastics in the food chain, which we just discussed with Ms. Saks.

Do you think it would be appropriate to include more single-use plastic items in schedule 1 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act?

I'm thinking, for example, of plastic cups, plates and packaging.

[Dr. Chelsea M. Rochman]

Thank you for the question. I'm sorry that I have to respond in English.

I can think of a couple of extra items, which I think I put in my longer testimony. There are a couple of others: plastic wet wipes, maybe, or—sorry to say this—plastic tampon applicators. We know replacements already exist for these things, and they don't have a sustainable end of life.

When it comes to understanding microplastics in a food web, I think we should put together a working group to do risk assessment to really understand what concentration is too much for humans and better understand it for wildlife, and use that information in thinking about what our next steps should be for policy.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

We know that new solutions are emerging. This is the case with some bioplastics. There is a Quebec company, BOSK Bioproducts, that produces bioplastics from pulp and paper sludge.

In your opinion, how soon could we see these products take a dominant place in the market?

[Dr. Chelsea M. Rochman]

I don't know how long it takes. It's a bit outside my expertise to know how long it takes for these to be adopted, but I can tell you that we've tested some of them in our research. For filters on washing machines and rain gardens or as bioretention cells for storm drains, they work. They're products on the market. I think that if we adopt them on a wider scale, that could be relatively quick, whereas some of these new recycling technologies might take longer to get to market. However, I could be told that I'm wrong about the pace of those things.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Unfortunately, your time is up, Ms. Pauzé. Thank you for your questions.

Mr. Bachrach, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all of our witnesses for their presentations so far.

I'd like to continue with some questions for Ms. Rochman, if I may.

First, as it stands, I was surprised that the government's proposed ban on the six single-use plastics covers only a fraction of 1% of the total plastic products we use. I know that many environmental organizations are calling for the list to be expanded considerably to include additional problematic plastic items, resins and material types.

In your opinion—and you may have answered this a bit in your response to Ms. Pauzé—are the six items sufficient to address the scale of the plastic pollution problem that we're facing?

[Dr. Chelsea M. Rochman]

Thank you for that question.

No, I don't think the items are sufficient to address the scale of the issue that we're creating, but I think every law that's put in place is a bit of a gateway for more policy to come in and increase our mitigation strategies. I think it's a good start.

I think we should look critically at different products on the market, and as new technologies come into place, think about what could be phased out and what could be phased in. If we continue with business as usual, the amount of plastic going into the environment may triple in less than 10 years, so we have quite a lot of work to do. Decreasing plastic waste is one way, and reducing production of some items is also a way to get there. I think it's a great start. I don't think it's the full answer.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Some of the items that are not currently on the proposed ban list, such as hot and cold drink cups and lids, plastic-stemmed cotton buds, cartons for eggs and produce, and lightweight produce bags have either already been banned in other jurisdictions or are similar to those on the list. If these items are also problematic from the perspective of environmental health and ease of recycling, is there any scientific rationale for not banning these items as well?

[Dr. Chelsea M. Rochman]

No, I don't have any scientific rationale for it. I will remind you that I'm an ecologist, but I don't have any scientific rationale for it.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you, Ms. Rochman.

Does the government's current risk-based approach for banning plastics adequately consider an item's presence and persistence in the environment, its toxicity, its necessity and whether it is easily recyclable? Are we adequately considering those criteria in creating the list?

[Dr. Chelsea M. Rochman]

I agree with how the list of proposed reasons, which you just mentioned in terms of how we assess products, are being assessed. I think persistence, toxicity and ubiquity are important. It's how we address persistent and ubiquitous chemicals. They persist in organic pollutants or priority substances.

As for things that are unnecessary or unsustainable to end of life, for sure I agree with those criteria. I think what you're asking me is whether we've assessed all of the products correctly and are actually using those criteria. For that, I would look to the government and ask whether we should be looking closely at other products.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

If I understand you correctly, in your opinion, the framework is a decent framework to work with and the approach is a good approach from a policy perspective, but you have questions about whether it's being applied broadly enough and whether enough products are being assessed using those criteria. Is that a fair characterization?

[Dr. Chelsea M. Rochman]

I think so. I think we've made a good start. We should start somewhere. We should continue to assess items and we should think about whether more should be brought onto the list, which I think could include some items on the list you mentioned earlier.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you, Ms. Rochman.

Materials that are known to be particularly harmful to the environment or human health, including oxo-degradable plastics, all forms of polystyrene, polyvinyl chloride and multi-material packaging, are also not included in the proposed ban.

Can you speak as a scientist to the harmful effect that these plastics have on the environment and human health?

[Dr. Chelsea M. Rochman]

I think part of the reason those products have been left off is that they're not easily substitutable. That's my guess. Food packaging, for example, is a tricky one.

Right now, from what we know about the toxicity of plastics and from the risk assessments in place, the risk has to do with the size and quantity of the microplastics in the gut of an organism. There is some evidence, though, that certain plastic types can be more toxic than others. For example, you mentioned polystyrene and PVC. Tire dust is another example. In the case of tire dust, we understand that it might be more hazardous than a polyethylene. As for PVC and polystyrene, while there are chemicals in them that can make them more toxic than other types of plastics, I don't think there's enough evidence yet to suggest that they're leaching at a rate that could harm organisms.

Right now, it's microplastics in general, as a mixture, that should be kept out of the environment, regardless of material type.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chair, do I have a few more seconds?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You have 30 seconds for the Qs and As.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I'll make it very quick.

Obviously, provincial governments have a lot more tools in their tool box to address the regulation of the plastics problem. One tool that the federal government does have is listing these products under CEPA. However, as we've heard at today's meeting, industry has been lobbying hard against this approach.

How important is it that this listing be done as quickly as possible?

[Dr. Chelsea M. Rochman]

I think it's important that we take care of this issue as quickly as possible. As I said, the concentrations in the environment or the amount going out may triple in just a decade. I think people should also recognize that the word “toxic” under CEPA does not mean the same thing as a toxicologist might assume it to mean. It means it may cause harm. When I read the definition in the law, I don't think we're going against its meaning. I think it's the word.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

We'll go to our second round, which is essentially a five-minute one.

We'll start with Mr. Seeback for five minutes, please.