Evidence of meeting #24 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was recycling.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:50 p.m.
Assistant Professor, University of Toronto, As an Individual
I'll just say that in terms of the way “toxic” is defined under CEPA, I agree with it.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Matt Jeneroux Conservative Edmonton Riverbend, AB
Great.
I do want to get back to you, Mr. Roter, just very quickly. Obviously, we've seen and asked the minister this same question. I think there have been over 300 notices of objection to labelling plastics as “toxic” under CEPA. When you say that your members are neither for nor against, would you say that some of your members have weighed in on this in terms of a notice of objection?
4:50 p.m.
Managing Director, Canada Plastics Pact
I'm not aware of the details of what [Technical difficulty—Editor]. I do know that we have members who are in support and those who are against, and I think that's what I can say.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Matt Jeneroux Conservative Edmonton Riverbend, AB
Maybe let's find common ground here. If I were to say the use of a “toxic” designation by government on PET creates an inherent conflict between the perception of material as toxic while simultaneously creating an economic ecosystem acknowledging its value, would that kind of fit the majority of your members?
4:50 p.m.
Managing Director, Canada Plastics Pact
Yes. As I come back to it, I would say there's a range of opinions from our members. What I will say is that there's a lot of alignment from our members that there need to be efforts that are much broader than this conversation in order to be able to create this circular economy for plastics within Canada.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Matt Jeneroux Conservative Edmonton Riverbend, AB
Mr. Galt, we see a lot of the impact this would have not just here in Canada, as you mentioned, but as I was watching some of the testimony take place today, I was thinking about the impact this would possibly have on trade agreements, particularly with down south. In your position, I'm sure you've dealt with a number of businesses down south—in the United States, to be accurate.
Is there that kind of uncertainty about what this means to some of those businesses when it comes to international trade?
4:50 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Husky Injection Molding Systems Ltd.
Absolutely, there is. I think you may be aware of the fact that already the U.S. has cited concerns over trade today and— [Technical difficulty—Editor]
Something is going on there.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I'm afraid I can't control that at this end, but it seems to be gone.
4:50 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Husky Injection Molding Systems Ltd.
I'll try again.
So yes— [Technical difficulty—Editor]
Will I try to speak over that and just keep going?
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, perhaps we could suspend for a minute or two, if we can't....
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Matt Jeneroux Conservative Edmonton Riverbend, AB
I'll turn it back to Mr. Galt to finish his comments.
4:50 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Husky Injection Molding Systems Ltd.
You may be aware that already the U.S. has launched a concern regarding the concept of the trade agreement between the U.S., Canada and Mexico, and the fact that this unfairly influences importers of goods—plastic articles—from the U.S. into Canada. I'll leave that out of there, because that's not my area of expertise.
What I can say is it adds a significant level of complication to things such as the importation of, let's say again, those medical devices. The U.S. is our biggest trade partner in medical devices. We're most reliant on the U.S. At this point in time, syringes, test kits and all of these devices for which we supply manufacturing equipment and that are produced in the United States and shipped into Canada will now have the difficulty of dealing with a toxic designation. What does that mean for cross-border transportation? What does it mean in terms of complications of that? These are some of the things people are concerned about that we don't feel have had the time to be discussed yet.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Yes, given the interruption we had, but very briefly, and with a very brief answer, .
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Matt Jeneroux Conservative Edmonton Riverbend, AB
We have such a generous chair, witnesses. He's being very kind.
Over the scope of the pandemic, I think we've seen an increased use in things like single-use plastic. I'm wondering if there's a.... Maybe I'll turn it over to Mr. Masterson or Ms. Mantagaris to comment on what a ban would mean right now and on where we are in terms of the pandemic.
4:55 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Chemistry Industry Association of Canada
The government has not proposed to ban any personal protective equipment [Technical difficulty—Editor] that society's appreciation for plastics through the COVID pandemic means they are less certain in their determination to solve the plastic waste issue.
We have to solve this problem. We can and we will, very promptly, create a circular economy for plastics. We need a much more robust process than what currently has been tabled by the Government of Canada.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Good. Thanks.
We'll have to move on now.
Go ahead, Mr. Saini.
April 12th, 2021 / 4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Raj Saini Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to all the witnesses. This is such great information. I think we're all learning a lot.
Ms. Rochman, I'd like to start off by asking you some questions. I'm going to reference the 2018 scientific paper that you wrote. I want to look at the human side of this issue [Technical difficulty—Editor] from bioaccumulation of microplastics and nanoplastics making their way into the marine food chain.
You mentioned that toxicity levels vary depending on the chemicals associated with different plastics and their sources. I'm also going to reference something else. As you will recall, there was a 2016 UN report which stated that over 800 animal species were contaminated with plastic via ingestion or entanglement. [Technical difficulty—Editor] not only as an industry, but recognize that's 6.7% of the world's protein.
Are you able to identify what sources of microplastics provide the greatest threats to both marine and human health? How best can we mitigate this threat?
4:55 p.m.
Assistant Professor, University of Toronto, As an Individual
There's a huge increase in the amount of literature that comes out every year. We're learning a lot more every year about the risk of microplastics to [Technical difficulty—Editor] comes to seafood, which is, I think, what you are asking me about.
We know these microplastics can get into the fillet or the parts of the fish we eat. We have numbers even for Lake Simcoe in terms of how much we see in the fillet and how that may matter in terms of exposure. Right now, as I said, there is some literature.
You mentioned before that certain plastics may be more harmful than others. I'm working right now on a risk assessment for the State of California for both humans and wildlife. Even though I think that as we learn more, we might change our minds, for the purpose of this risk assessment we are saying that microplastic is microplastic is microplastic. We're not differentiating between the different types. We're saying that what matters is the concentration and the volume. It has to do with the size of the particles and the number of particles.
For that matter, there are lots of different sources of microplastics coming into the environment. I can't tell you which one is the most important in terms of which type is the most toxic. I can tell you that I recognize that seafood is really important. I think the amount humans are exposed to from seafood is probably much smaller than from drinking water or dust. We don't have enough evidence right now to tell people how or what to consume based on what we know about human health and exposure from seafood. Right now places are trying to start to do that for drinking water first.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Raj Saini Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
The research is still evolving, as I understand, but do you see an issue with marine animals being affected by microplastics?