Environment Committee on April 28th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Our meeting is under way. Welcome to the 20th meeting of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. This is our fourth and last meeting as part of the plastics study.

For the benefit of witnesses, the way we proceed is that we have five-minute opening statements and then go to rounds of questioning.

You of course may answer in either official language. When not speaking, please put yourselves on mute. That covers pretty much all of the procedural aspects.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Chair, you said that this was the final one. We still have—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I meant second to last. There's one more, which will be with the departmental officials.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Okay. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

There are all kinds of things going on in the House, of course. There are a couple of votes planned, so I propose the following, and I hope you'll agree.

What we could do is that when the bells start—I'm monitoring this and I know that the clerk is probably monitoring it—we could continue with our meeting until there are five minutes left before the voting starts. Then we could put ourselves on mute, turn off our cameras or whatever, and vote. When the 10-minute voting period is over, we can come back to the meeting. It would be a maximum 15-minute interruption, probably twice. We'll be interrupted twice. We'll be able to end our meeting at a reasonable hour.

Does anyone object to this approach? No? Okay. Great.

We have with us today, from the Canadian Beverage Association, Mr. Jim Goetz, president. From Environmental Defence Canada, we have Karen Wirsig, program manager, plastics. We will have the Honourable Sonya Savage, Minister of Energy for the Province of Alberta, joining us shortly. From Oceana Canada, we have Joshua Laughren, executive director, and Ashley Wallis, plastics campaigner. From the Regional Municipality of Peel, we have Mr. Norman Lee, director of waste management.

We shall begin with a five-minute opening with Mr. Goetz, please.

[Jim Goetz, President, Canadian Beverage Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We really appreciate the opportunity to appear before the committee today.

My name is Jim Goetz. I am president of the Canadian Beverage Association, an organization representing the majority of non-alcoholic beverage companies in Canada.

CBA members directly employ over 20,000 Canadians in more than 200 facilities nationwide, in every region of the country. The refreshment industry supports jobs directly and indirectly in retail, food service, vending, convenience and restaurant channels.

The CBA and our members share the Government of Canada's goal to reduce plastic waste, increase recycling and transition to a more robust circular economy.

Our beverage containers are made to be remade. The plastic materials used are designed to be recycled and repurposed. Beverage containers are collected at high rates and recycled at high rates, and are valuable within the collection stream and circular economy value chain. They are not intended to be disposed of as waste. Not only is PET, the plastic that beverage bottles are made of, recyclable, but it can easily be recycled to achieve food-grade quality through mechanical or advanced recycling, and be made back into a bottle or other food-contact packaging.

The government's discussion paper defines single use as “designed to be thrown away after being used only once”. Distinguishing between true single-use plastic and PET beverage bottles and HDPE caps is critical to facilitating informative and accurate future discussions.

Beverage containers are collected, recycled and processed here in Canada, supporting jobs within the circular domestic economy from coast to coast, including large recycling facilities in Quebec, British Columbia, Ontario and Alberta.

The CBA and our members play a leadership role to manage and strengthen regional recycling programs, mostly at the provincial level. These programs currently achieve beverage container recycling rates averaging 75%. Some jurisdictions reach 85%, a robust recovery rate compared to other plastics overall.

CBA is actively engaged in extended producer responsibility recycling programs, either in place for decades or in development, which will work to increase harmonization and efficiency and invest over $300 million in beverage container recycling programs nationwide. We believe EPR is the appropriate management tool for beverage container packaging. This approach is instrumental to achieving current and future material collection targets, which we support and advocate in favour of reaching higher targets.

As you consider a new plastics framework, such as the recently announced list of banned materials from ECCC and recycled content standards, we ask that you study and account for the complexity of the detailed planning and overall material engineering and replacement projects that industry will have to carry out, including supplier capacity; lead time; technical support capabilities, depending on how many industry lines need to be changed; the cost of converting, retooling, and downtime; back-up contingency planning; and establishing an appropriate and workable phase-out period.

We believe that recycled content standards legislation should allow flexibility on how our members achieve an overall recycling content percentage required to meet set targets.

While Canada has high recovery rates on beverage containers relative to other materials, we must be mindful of the amount of recycled material that will be available domestically to meet recycled content targets. We want to get to those targets, but there has to be the material available to do it, particularly if it's set in legislation.

In summary, we are proud that beverage containers have the highest recovery and recycling rate for plastic packaging in Canada. Our members have made commitments to increase the recycled content of their PET plastic bottles in the coming years and will continue their contribution to a circular economy.

We will carry on building and supporting recycling programs in every jurisdiction across the country to keep beverage containers and caps out of the environment and retain their value by increasing rates of recovery and recycling across Canada.

I thank the committee and especially the committee staff. I had some technical problems, and the staff were excellent in helping me to get connected.

Thank you to the committee. I look forward to any questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes. We're very fortunate to have the great support of the House of Commons staff at all levels.

We will go now to Environmental Defence Canada with Karen Wirsig.

Ms. Wirsig, the floor is yours for five minutes.

[Karen Wirsig, Program Manager, Plastics, Environmental Defence Canada]

Thank you very much, and thanks to the committee for the invitation.

Environmental Defence is a Canadian environmental charity. We work on a number of federal and provincial environmental issues, including protecting Canada's fresh water, fighting climate change, urging sustainable land-use planning, eliminating toxics and ending plastic pollution.

We would like to cover four points in our testimony today: one, that CEPA is an appropriate tool for dealing with plastic pollution in Canada; two, that recycling alone is not any kind of solution to the growing tide of plastic pollution; three, that the government must be more proactive to support reuse systems that replace single-use materials and especially plastics; and four, that the government must end subsidies to the petrochemical industry and focus on workers and communities in the transition towards a low-carbon economy.

On CEPA, I hope the committee members have had an opportunity to read the written brief we submitted a few weeks ago, in which we recommended specific federal action to stop plastic pollution.

Of those recommendations, I would like to highlight that we support the listing of plastic manufactured items to Schedule 1 of CEPA, which is the most effective way to address upstream and downstream plastic pollution in Canada.

Plastics are toxic to the environment, and it is wholly appropriate to regulate them under Canada's Environmental Protection Act. We also support banning single-use plastic items, including the six proposed in the government's discussion paper of last autumn. As well, we support establishing a recycled-content requirement for new plastic products.

We're calling for a comprehensive set of tools to manage plastic pollution that require the government to use its regulatory authority. Industry commitments to addressing plastic pollution are most welcome, but voluntary efforts and partnerships alone will not solve this crisis.

Environmental Defence supporters have sent more than 40,000 messages to the government in support of action on plastics pollution. I can tell you from my own interaction with supporters that there is a high level of frustration about the amount of plastic we as consumers have to deal with, concern about the damage this plastic is causing in the environment, and anxiety about the impacts on our health.

Polling from earlier this year confirms that there is a very high degree of consensus among Canadians across the political spectrum that the federal government must act to protect our environment from plastic pollution. The public is expecting the federal government to do something about the plastics crisis.

With regard to recycling, it's an important aspect of a circular economy, but frankly it has limited use for plastics under current market conditions. We reject the contention stated repeatedly during these hearings by representatives of the plastics industry that poor waste management is to blame for plastic pollution and that the solution is better behaviour by consumers and more innovative recycling, including so-called advanced thermal and chemical processes subsidized by governments.

Recycling, and particularly so-called “advanced recycling”, will not save us from plastic pollution, and pretending it will is a mistake we urge the government not to make.

On reuse, we were surprised to note that no organizations currently involved in reuse systems to replace single-use plastic materials have appeared during this study. We urge Environment and Climate Change Canada to host a round table for reuse companies and organizations to learn more about what infrastructure is needed to support reuse across the country.

We have talked to a number of reuse organizations, and they tell us their service is popular and important to both the environment and the economy, but supports are needed to scale it up in communities across the country. We note that it takes relatively little investment to create good local jobs through reuse systems. These are jobs involved in logistics, sanitation, and technology that could support communities and workers suffering right now due to COVID-related job losses.

One of these organizations, DreamZero, reports that the infrastructure for manufacturing and effectively recycling durable plastic containers in Canada is sorely lacking. Plastics manufacturers here are focused on the production of linear single-use products, the vast majority of which end up in landfills or incinerators, or go directly into the environment at end of life.

Despite seeking local manufacturers, DreamZero has been forced to get supply from China and Europe of durable takeout containers that can be reused hundreds of times. DreamZero is currently storing its containers at end of life in order to find a local recycler able to reliably turn them back into new food-safe containers. Reuse systems in manufacturing are the kind of green technology that the federal government must support as we move to a low-carbon economy.

Finally, we're asking the government to end subsidies to the petrochemical industry. Plastics are a segment of the oil and gas industry, and Canada has committed to ending fossil fuel subsidies. It makes no sense to support the petrochemical and plastic industries with grants and tax breaks that ultimately serve to increase production of plastics when we're trying to stem the flow of plastic products into the environment.

Instead of supporting environmentally problematic petrochemical projects, we urge the government to adopt a just transition plan for chemical workers and plastics manufacturers that shifts the focus of manufacturing to durable products, develops widespread reuse systems and invests in mechanical recycling able to turn durable materials back into reusable products of a similar value. This type of plan will avoid stranding workers and infrastructure in the kind of economy we're trying to get away from.

Thank you very much for this opportunity.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much, Ms. Wirsig.

I don't know if the Honourable Sonya Savage is on the line or if we're still working on connecting her.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Angela Crandall]

I just checked and we're still working on connecting her.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay. We'll move on, then, to Mr. Laughren for five minutes.

[Joshua Laughren, Executive Director, Oceana Canada]

Ashley Wallis will be speaking on behalf of Oceana Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay.

Ms. Wallis, I'm sorry about that.

[Ashley Wallis, Plastics Campaigner, Oceana Canada]

It's no problem. Thank you so much.

Good afternoon. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for inviting me today to speak about this important issue.

My name is Ashley Wallis, and I am the plastics campaigner at Oceana Canada. I am joined today by Oceana Canada's executive director, Josh Laughren.

Oceana Canada is an independent charity and part of the largest international advocacy group dedicated solely to ocean conservation. We believe that Canada has an obligation to manage our natural resources responsibly and to help ensure a sustainable source of protein for the world. We work with Canadians coast to coast to coast to return Canada's formerly vibrant oceans to health and abundance.

As nearly every witness has said over the last few weeks, the world is without doubt facing a plastic pollution crisis. Scientists from around the world are ringing alarm bells, with study after study describing the ubiquity of plastic pollution and the impacts that plastic production, use, and disposal have on both environmental and human health. As one of the wealthiest and most economically productive countries in the world, we have a responsibility to end Canada's contribution to the plastic pollution disaster.

Last year, two groundbreaking studies estimated the effectiveness of various interventions and found that predicted growth in plastic waste far exceeds global efforts to mitigate plastic pollution. One of the studies found that implementing all feasible interventions would still lead to 17 million tonnes of plastic waste ending up in the global environment every year by the year 2040. The study also found that recycling alone would reduce plastic pollution by only 45% when compared to a business-as-usual scenario.

Let me reframe that for a second. Even in the best recycling scenario, by 2040, 45 million tonnes of plastic would be flowing into the global environment every year. That is 7 million more metric tonnes than today.

These findings highlight the urgent need to regulate plastic across its life cycle, and that despite what the committee has heard from industry, we cannot recycle our way out of this crisis. Canada needs to reduce plastic production and use, including banning non-essential plastic products that are commonly found polluting our rivers, oceans, parks and wild areas.

To mitigate the impact of plastic on the environment and human health, and to support Canada's transition to a non-toxic, low-carbon circular economy, we recommend the following:

First, expand and finalize the federal ban on harmful single-use plastics. More than 32 countries have already banned or are in the process of banning single-use plastics, including the European Union, Chile, Peru and Kenya. Canada's proposed ban is a good step, but overall falls short of what is needed. The items that the government has proposed to ban are low-hanging fruit, with many cities and businesses across Canada already banning or voluntarily replacing them with non-plastic or non-single-use alternatives.

Oceana Canada polled Canadians in December of last year and found that two-thirds want the ban expanded to include other problematic single-use plastics, like single-use coffee cups and lids and all forms of polystyrene. The government has science and public opinion on its side and should finalize and implement the ban no later than December of this year.

Second, Canada must reject false solutions to the plastic pollution crisis. Incineration, energy from waste, waste to fuel, downcycling and so-called advanced or chemical recycling are just waste disposal in disguise. These false solutions perpetuate a toxic, carbon-intensive, linear economy. For example, chemical recycling technologies face similar challenges to traditional mechanical recycling, including requiring a relatively pure homogenous flow of plastic to be economically viable. They are also immature and energy intensive and often do not displace virgin plastic, making them incompatible with a circular economy.

Lastly, instead of subsidizing the fossil fuel and petrochemical sectors, Canada needs to support the shift to reusable products and packaging. The Ellen MacArthur Foundation estimates that replacing 20% of single-use plastics globally with reusables would generate $10 billion in economic activity. Therefore, regulations that limit the use of single-use plastics, such as the ban, should be paired with incentives and investments that encourage and support the development of robust reuse systems.

In closing, this past December, scientists found microplastics in human umbilical cords and placentas, meaning that unborn babies are exposed to plastic pollution in utero and that plastic can cross the placental barrier. We are exposed to plastic before we are born. Plastic pollution isn’t just all around us; it’s also inside us. I urge the committee to recommend that the government institute strong federal regulations under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to end the plastic disaster.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Ms. Wallis.

We'll go to Mr. Lee from the Regional Municipality of Peel for five minutes, please.

[Norman Lee, Director, Waste Management, Regional Municipality of Peel]

Good afternoon. Thank you for inviting me to appear before this committee.

My name is Norman Lee, and I am the director of waste management at the Regional Municipality of Peel.

The Region of Peel is home to over 1.5 million people, who generate over 500,000 tons of residential waste each year. We currently divert half of it, including 100,000 tons through our blue box program and another 100,000 tons through our green bin and yard waste programs. We have a target of 75% diversion by 2034 and are making significant investments to reach it.

In Ontario, municipalities manage about one-third of all waste generated, including virtually all residential waste. We also collect much of the litter. I expect other provinces are similar. The municipal perspective is therefore important, and I thank you for taking the time to hear it.

One of the most significant waste management challenges faced by municipalities today is the recycling of plastic packaging, which is becoming lighter and more complex, making it more difficult and more expensive to manage. The lack of mandatory recycled content requirements results in weak demand for some recovered plastics, such as the plastic film used in grocery bags. Messages from brand owners and retailers often conflict with municipal messaging about what can be recycled or composted. This results in materials being put in the wrong bin, which increases cost and decreases diversion.

The Region of Peel supports the use of an evidence-based approach to assess problematic single-use plastics. The region supports the establishment of minimum recycled contents. We support the expansion of EPR programs across Canada. We support the proposed ban on harmful single-use plastics, including the six items identified for the initial ban.

These single-use plastics are often undetected and increasingly difficult to separate in municipal facilities. They contaminate our recycling and our compost, and are a major contributor to litter in our streets, parks and waterways.

While municipalities support the use of environmentally friendly alternatives, we are concerned with the promotion of compostable plastic-like materials until our systems can be changed to manage them. These materials pose a challenge at our composting facilities, because our facilities are not designed to compost them. Nor are they designed to effectively separate them out as contaminants. To retrofit our facilities right now would be prohibitively expensive.

The Region of Peel operates its own composting system. We’ve worked with a number of producers to test the compostability of their products and packages. At the end of a standard nine-week composting cycle, none of the materials we tested were fully decomposed. They would contaminate the finished compost, reducing its value or, worse, making it unsellable.

The Region of Peel is investing $100 million to develop an anaerobic digestion facility for its green bin material. This facility will be better at removing contaminants, but our investigations show that most compostable products and packaging would be removed early in the process and sent to landfill.

We think the following measures should be put in place before compostable plastics and plastic-like materials are introduced and supported as an alternative to single-use plastics: national certification standards that ensure that materials marketed as “compostable” can be composted in practice and at scale; national labelling and advertising standards to reduce consumer and resident confusion; and producer responsibility programs for compostable products and packaging, preferably in accordance with national standards or guidelines. These should be accompanied by federal programs to support investment in processing infrastructure for compostable products and packaging, and mandatory recycled content requirements that are sufficiently high and enforceable.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lee.

The Honourable Sonya Savage is still not on the line, so we'll do like we did at the last session. If she comes on, we'll interrupt the questioning and provide her with five minutes to make a statement.

We'll go to the first round with Mr. Jeneroux, for six minutes please.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I wonder if you'd be open to doing something a bit unusual: swapping our round with the Liberals' next round, perhaps giving Minister Savage extra time. I was hoping to focus my questions on Minister Savage's testimony.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

What you're saying is that we'd have Mr. Longfield go and then Mr. Saini. Then, in the second round, it would be Mr. Redekopp and you starting off.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

I have questions for her as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Let me see here if we can figure this out quickly.

Why don't we start with—

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

I can take the round, if that makes it easier.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

That does, Mr. Albas. Thank you.

Go ahead.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Thank you.

First of all, I would like to thank all our witnesses for being here today and presenting their different viewpoints. I'm sure this is going to be a good discussion.

I'm going to start with Mr. Lee.

Mr. Lee, you've raised a few different points in your presentation. Specifically, we've heard before at this committee—I believe it was in the study of Bill C-204—that in Ontario there are multiple different standards that are followed, and it creates a lot of consumer confusion. Can you state if that's the case?

[Norman Lee]

There are many different approaches, especially in the blue box program, where individual municipalities are responsible for the design of the program and for deciding what goes in the blue box. That confuses residents when they travel from one municipality to the next. The same is true with our green bin programs. We each decide what goes in our green bin program. We make those decisions based on a number of factors, including the design of our processing equipment and whether or not we can actually process certain materials. One example that comes up over and over is used coffee cups. Some municipalities allow them in the blue box. Some municipalities allow them in the green bin. Some municipalities allow them in neither. It depends on the types of equipment they use. That causes confusion.

There's also confusion between the messages that municipalities give to residents and the messages that retailers give, sometimes right on the package, about the recyclability or compostability of packages.