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.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Fair enough.
Are the chemicals that are going to be declared toxic and harmful important in the production of certain things?
4:05 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Chemistry Industry Association of Canada
I think this is a key question; that's the whole point here. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act's schedule 1 is meant to address chemical substances. We think of things like asbestos. Someone mentioned PFAS earlier. It's meant to look at those kinds of things. What is being proposed right now is to take a whole group of consumer products [Technical difficulty—Editor] There is no other precedent for saying a group of consumer products, like all plastic manufactured items, would be listed on CEPA's schedule 1.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Again that is interesting, because in opposing Bill C-204, MP Saini's reason was that the chemicals at play are important in the production of things. If the government declares all plastics are toxic, will that result in the loss of jobs?
4:05 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Chemistry Industry Association of Canada
I tried to talk about two levels of impact, one definitely, and the list is a precursor to that. The bans will definitely impact the smaller companies. The question of listing plastics as toxic, however, does send a signal about the ambivalence at best, as I said, of Canada as an investment designation for circularity.
We have a low-carbon plastics economy. We have global leaders here. We have companies that will make the investment, but they need to be welcomed and worked with. I think someone has talked about public-private partnerships. We all want to get to the same place. How do we work together to do this? Declaring plastics toxic is not a solution that engenders good co-operative relationships.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Then I would expect that MP Bittle, who said "It's a potentially dangerous piece of paper if it's going to cost jobs at the expense of not being enforceable", will join us in opposing the government's harmful toxic designation.
Mr. Masterson, will this designation and ban hurt Canadian businesses? You mentioned a flyover economy. Can you elaborate more on that?
4:05 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Chemistry Industry Association of Canada
I'll talk very briefly about the investment, but I think Ms. Mantagaris can talk more about the impacts on the business.
Again, our industry has seen $300 billion of investment in the U.S. in the last seven years. That's half of all manufacturing investment. Most of that has been in the area of plastics. The low-carbon economy demands more and more plastics. That investment is taking place. Canada is already an investment flyover destination. We've seen very little of that investment here. We should have seen more. Does this do anything to help us attract more investment? I think the answer is clearly “no”.
As for impacts on the companies themselves, the Huskys and other plastics companies, if there's time, please follow up with Ms. Mantagaris.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
4:10 p.m.
Elena Mantagaris Vice-President, Plastics Division, Chemistry Industry Association of Canada
Yes. Thank you.
In terms of specific examples, there's no question that many of our members have indicated that this type of approach will affect their businesses and the future of their operations. I recently met with MP Maloney with just two of our members who represent 600 jobs in the Etobicoke North area. There are dozens and dozens of plastics companies in that area. They both indicated that jobs would be at risk.
I spoke with another company out of Montreal that recycles plastic bags, the item that's being proposed to be banned. If this moves forward, they'll likely move their locations to the U.S. Why would they choose to be in a jurisdiction where their product is being declared toxic and where the investment they've made in recycling infrastructure is not valued? They'll go where it's valued.
Certainly, to build on Bob Masterson's point, I think many of our members are questioning whether future investments in this country are feasible, whether in the recycling system or just in the plastics production sector in general.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you.
We'll go to Ms. Saks now. Ms. Saks, you have six minutes.
April 12th, 2021 / 4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Ya'ara Saks Liberal York Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I hope my sound is okay now. Can I perhaps get a thumbs-up from the clerk?
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Ya'ara Saks Liberal York Centre, ON
Wonderful.
Thank you to all the witnesses who are here today. This is a really wonderful start to our plastics study.
Professor Rochman, I'd like to start with you, if I may, to highlight the research that you mentioned you've been conducting. Since my colleague Mr. Albas talked about toxicity, I'd like to open by getting a clarification.
When we're talking about toxicity, we're talking about the impacts on biodiversity and on health, both of those aspects. In exploring that in relation to CEPA, we're really looking at the agility to be able to protect our biodiversity. With regard to the environmental risks of plastic pollution on the ecosystem, particularly microplastics, can you highlight for me and for this committee a little bit more about the organisms, species and wildlife that are impacted by the microplastics and the toxicity potentially related to it?
4:10 p.m.
Assistant Professor, University of Toronto, As an Individual
Sure, I would be happy to. Thank you for the question. I'll start with wildlife, and then I'll answer the question about human health.
When it comes to wildlife, there's no doubt that organisms are exposed. This includes animals at every level of the food web. In Lake Ontario, for example, where I live, we sometimes find fish with more than 100 pieces of microplastics in their gut contents. They're exposed, and in certain locations, they're exposed to a high concentration.
A number of laboratory studies have looked at the effects on organisms. This includes zooplankton, organisms at that lower level of the food chain, and from molluscs like mussels and clams and oysters all the way up to fish. If people synthesize that work and put it together, they can look at the risk to the species. For example, if I put this information together, what is the concentration that harms 5% of the species within the environment? That concentration is around 100 to 120 particles per litre. That concentration is found in some parts of our Great Lakes already.
When it comes to microplastics, we still have a lot to learn in terms of the different types of plastics out there, but we know that the concentrations we find in nature in high concentrations can be toxic to freshwater and marine species.
When it comes to human health, we know that there are microplastics in our drinking water. We know that there are microplastics in the seafood we eat as a result of microplastics leaving the gut and going into parts of the organism that we eat. We don't yet know how it impacts human health. That's still a bit of a black box.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Ya'ara Saks Liberal York Centre, ON
I'd like to just [Technical difficulty—Editor]. Do we know where these plastics in the environment are coming from?
4:10 p.m.
Assistant Professor, University of Toronto, As an Individual
We don't know perfectly for everywhere, but I can talk to you about some of the different pathways.
One, when we do cleanups or we have Seabins, for example, on our waterfronts, we know that for large plastics, some of these single-use plastic items are what we commonly find. In the case of microplastics, broken-down bits of things we can't recognize might be from there.
I'll be honest and say that a lot of what we find are microfibres from textiles and bits of tire rubber from cars. There certainly are different sources. Single-use plastics are one pathway. There are a lot of pathways when it comes to microplastics.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Ya'ara Saks Liberal York Centre, ON
I'd like to slip in here, because I know my time is limited.
In terms of the single-use plastics that we're discussing now and the six classes of items that we're proposing, I do know that about 256,000 tonnes of plastic was recovered and recycled last year, but nearly 20 times that much was produced in virgin resin, which goes into many of these single-use plastics.
Do you think that the government is going in the right direction now with this initial ban of the six classes of items in our first proposal to come at the end of this year?
4:15 p.m.
Assistant Professor, University of Toronto, As an Individual
I do agree with it. Because we see these items commonly in the environment, the criteria were right: They're common in the environment; they may cause harm; they're not practically recyclable—I understand that they can be recycled, but the markets aren't necessarily here—and they're replaceable or can be replaced with reusable products.
I agree with it. We have to build a circular economy that includes recyclables for sure, but for items that are hard to recycle, that aren't being recycled and that are unnecessary, I do think the government is moving in the right direction.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Ya'ara Saks Liberal York Centre, ON
Thank you.
Chair, I think my time is nearly up. Can you check for me, please?
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Ya'ara Saks Liberal York Centre, ON
I'd like to go a little bit further into this. We've already tested the waters, if I may say, on the impact on aquatic life with the ban on microbeads in 2017. That was a first step. As we're looking at microplastics now, as you mentioned before, how pervasive is the proliferation in our environment and what do we need to consider in balancing it out? We discussed a circular economy, but what we're seeing is that much more is being produced than we're recovering. One of our witnesses, Mr. Roter, even mentioned that the statistics on recovery are inconsistent across the country. We don't know, really, how much we're successfully recovering and recycling.
Could you go a little bit more into the steps that we need because of the impacts of microplastics? I would be grateful.
4:15 p.m.
Assistant Professor, University of Toronto, As an Individual
Okay, the quick answer is that the ban on microbeads worked. We see less of it in the environment. Every little bit counts. Single-use plastic items are one of them. Next, let's put filters on washing machines and rain gardens on storm drains.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
That's pretty concise. I like that. It's a very interesting topic.
Ms. Pauzé, you have the floor for six minutes.
4:15 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Langlois-Blouin, I am familiar with RECYC-QUÉBEC, as this organization works with unions in the education field to make schools environmentally responsible. It reminds me of my other life.
You mentioned extended producer responsibility. We are familiar with that principle, but can you tell us how that plays out in your organization?