Environment Committee on April 12th, 2021

[George Roter]

Thank you for the question. I think the question was whether or not companies producing the plastics, materials and products that we put into plastic packaging should have responsibility.

At the Canada Plastics Pact, we do believe in that. We believe that there needs to be accountability with those producers. The producers themselves are interested in being able to do that, because then they can really have the opportunity to—

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Roter, my question was more about subsidies.

A lot of subsidies are given to plastics producers, while the recycling sector, which is under provincial jurisdiction, does not receive equivalent subsidies.

Would you agree that this industry should also receive subsidies?

[George Roter]

Maybe I'll hand it over to Mr. Valiante.

[Usman Valiante, Technical Advisor, Canada Plastics Pact]

Thank you. That's a great question.

Under extended producer responsibility, we make manufacturers of products that are using plastics or plastic packaging responsible. Really, the funding in the investment—

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Valiante, excuse me for interrupting. I am not talking about producer responsibility, I am talking about subsidies.

A lot of subsidies are given to the production sector. On May 1, 2019, Mr. Roter told the committee that companies that produce plastics garner 30 times more subsidies than recycling companies.

Shouldn't recycling companies also receive significant subsidies?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Basically we're talking about fossil fuel subsidies at the production end.

Is this correct, Ms. Pauzé?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Are you not talking about fossil fuel subsidies?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

No. I'm talking about subsidies to companies that produce plastics.

[Usman Valiante]

It is true that there are subsidies for companies producing plastics, but when we talk about the funding of recycling systems, it is the manufacturers that choose plastics for their packaging or any other purpose that should be—I wouldn't use the word “subsidizing”—investing in systems to collect and recycle that material.

The subsidies for the plastic manufacturing sector are a separate discussion from the investments that product manufacturers need to make in collecting and recycling systems. Those investments need to come from the private sector companies that are using packaging. They need to pay for the systems to collect and recycle that material and the investments in innovation and technology.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We are going now to Mr. Bachrach.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Chair, since there was some confusion related to interpretation, would you allow me to ask another question?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

In fact, the four minutes have already run out.

Maybe we'll give you a little flexibility next time.

We'll go to Mr. Bachrach for two and a half minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a few questions for Mr. Galt.

If I understand correctly, in your presentation you took issue with this idea of plastics being listed as toxic under the CEPA definition.

I read the CEPA definition. I am somewhat new to it, not being a permanent member of the committee. I struggle to see how these plastics don't fit the definition to a T. It talks about having “an immediate or long-term harmful effect on the environment or its biological diversity; [constituting] or may constitute a danger to the environment on which life depends; or constitute or may constitute a danger in Canada to human life or health.”

I am curious whether it's that you don't feel plastics fit that definition or whether you don't feel that definition is appropriate. Could you explain?

[John Galt]

It was more to the extent of the definition being appropriate and singling out plastics [Technical difficulty—Editor] 34 million tonnes of municipal waste per year, and plastic packaging, which seems to be a big part of this dialogue, represents 5% of that.

As I mentioned earlier, I look at the relative toxicity to the environment of the other compositions of that 34 million tonnes, and I see that plastics on a relative scale have far less environmental impact than others. That was the context of my comment.

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

Arguably, it would also be an argument for listing those other components of municipal waste as also being regulated under CEPA, but I'll move on.

The other question I had relates to the public polling that showed that 95% of Canadians—and I'm sure you're familiar with this—are concerned about the impact plastic pollution has on our oceans. Two-thirds said they support expanding the proposed ban to other harmful plastic products, including hot and cold drink cups, cigarette filters and all forms of styrofoam.

How does the plastics industry justify its opposition to the ban that's being proposed in light of the massive public support for precisely that type of regulation?

[John Galt]

Over the course of last year we hired a professional polling company also, so we did our own poll, and we introduced information. You're correct that initially the response to plastics was negative.

We introduced two fundamental concepts to that same group of people going through that polling process. The first was that plastics are medical grade and an essential part of delivery of medical services in Canada, and because the materials used in those medical-grade components are exactly the same as the materials used in common environments, the impact will be on the potential supply of those materials.

Second, we introduced a recyclable, and the result was a complete change in polling of those people, so at that point in time, there was a complete reversal. In the poll, only 30% of the people still believed that plastics were toxic. Over 70% of them believed recycling and reuse of these valuable materials was the better solution.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Jeneroux, the floor is yours for five minutes, please.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, witnesses, for being here today. It is a truly interesting panel that we have here.

I'd like to get a quick question out to every panellist before we get started. We seem to be kind of dancing around whether we support CEPA labelling plastics as toxic or not, so I'll just put a question to each panellist: Are you for or against this labelling as toxic?

Let's start with you, Mr. Masterson.

[Bob Masterson]

I am against. As proposed, it is not six items. It is all plastic manufactured items. That is completely inappropriate, and there's no risk assessment that supports it under the CEPA process.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Thank you.

Mr. Roter, would you comment?

[George Roter]

In our case, we have a range of opinions from our members, so I'm unable to express an opinion one way or the other.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

I have a quick statement, which I'll read to you in just a second, Mr. Roter, but I do want to finish this question to everybody.

Mr. Galt, are you for or against?

[John Galt]

I'm against the designation.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Dr. Rochman, I guess I just want a “for” or “against” here. I know you've kind of been asked this question a little bit already.