Science and Research Committee on Oct. 3rd, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 100 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Science and Research.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. All witnesses have completed the required connection tests in advance of the meeting.

I'd like to remind all members of the following points.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. All comments should be addressed through the chair. Members, please raise your hand if you wish to speak, whether participating in person or via Zoom. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can.

For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mic, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking. There is interpretation for those on Zoom. You have the choice, at the bottom of your screen, of “floor”, “English” or “French”. Thank you all for your co-operation.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(i) and the motion adopted by the committee on Thursday, May 23, 2024, the committee resumes its study of innovation, science and research in recycling plastics.

It's now my pleasure to welcome, as an individual, Dr. Steve Allen, chief executive officer of Healthy Earth. He's here by video conference. Also here by video conference, from the Canadian Produce Marketing Association, we have Daniel Duguay, sustainability specialist.

You will have up to five minutes for opening remarks, after which we will proceed with rounds of questions.

Dr. Allen, I invite you to make an opening statement of up to five minutes.

[Dr. Steve Allen, Chief Executive Officer, Healthy Earth, As an Individual]

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you.

I study microplastic and nanoplastic pollution in the remotest areas of the globe. I showed plastic transport through the air, falling into the oceans and ejecting into the air through sea spray. I studied peat bogs that showed microplastics started raining down the early 1970s and have increased ever since, exactly matching plastic production. I find particle numbers grow exponentially the smaller you look. In Canada, I've studied plastic deposition from hurricanes and in seafood.

I mention this because all these measurements were made while everyone thought we were recycling. Canadians doing the right thing has little impact on their exposure to plastic, and it makes no difference if it's recycled, landfilled or incinerated. It leaks from its manufacture through to its end of life, and it's a global problem.

That drinking water in front of you contains plastic. Every glass of water on the planet does too. I'm certain that if I measured what plastic you're exposed to now—in water, food and even the air you breathe—it would be the lowest exposure of the rest of your life. If you manage to mechanically recycle 100% of Canada's waste tomorrow, it would likely only increase that.

There's so much plastic in the environment already that it's doubtful your grandchildren will ever enjoy the exposure level you have right now. They're exposed from placental serum to breast milk, and it's rapidly increasing. How much plastic can humans withstand? I don't know, but I worry that by the time we find out, it will be too late to do anything about it.

The plastics industry has had 50 years and an almost unlimited budget to develop recycling. It built the plastic. It knows the chemistry. If anyone could do it, the plastics industry could, but even Shell's advanced recycling pledge recently failed. Shell said it was not feasible and cited regulatory shifts.

Mechanical recycling plants themselves are leaky. I studied a new state-of-the-art recycling plant in Scotland, where 6% of the plastic that went in was leaking out as microplastics into the river. It recycled four million tonnes and released over 200,000 tonnes of microplastics and an unfathomable amount of nanoplastics. That does not even take into account the atmospheric release from recycling, the energy required or the risk of serving children french fries in recycled plastic that contains any of 16,000 chemicals.

The recycling expert witness you had here admitted you're not recycling anything now; you're only downcycling into inferior products. Making building materials out of it just means adding toxic flame retardants, PFAS, which are already in all of us.

I'm not saying that we should not look into recycling highly essential items, but I can't see the logic for governments to spend public money to keep this hazardous material in circulation.

Waste plastic is not a valuable resource. It's the equivalent of capturing lead to put back into fuel or recycling asbestos into more roofing. Scientifically and environmentally, for human health and climate change, and even economically, it does not make sense to recycle the majority of plastic. There are plenty of good alternatives that will create a true green-jobs economy if extracted, produced and reused safely and sustainably, such as glass, metal and plant-based materials, like areca palm and bamboo, etc. Governments can eliminate the cost to municipalities and consumers in the transition to these better alternatives by diverting a fraction of the subsidies now enjoyed by the plastics industry to safer and more sustainable materials.

We're not just dealing with plastic waste here; we're dealing with a global environmental and public health crisis. When you stop asking how much plastic the world can create without killing too many whales and instead look at how many organisms, including us, can be affected by the disintegration of a single plastic bag, you begin to understand the gravity of the situation. We are involved in an extremely dangerous experiment, and every day lost by investing in a profit-driven, short-term technofix to save the plastics industry is time wasted. There are no borders in nature. If Canada wants to protect the health of Canadians and the environment, Canada needs to do more to solve the global problem of plastic pollution right now. In short, you're addressing the wrong end of the plastic life cycle if you want to safeguard people and the environment.

The people who can solve this problem are in this room. You are the people who can regulate the plastic industry; curb production; make Canada a green economy powerhouse, not a pollution enabler; require disclosure of chemicals used; police the industry; make industry prove it is environmental before being put on the market; criminalize greenwashing; fund research into removing plastic from farm to table and fund global—

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

Dr. Allen, that's over time. You'll get a chance to finish your remarks, I'm sure, with our questions.

[Dr. Steve Allen]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

I'd now like to turn to our second witness.

Mr. Duguay, you have five minutes, please.

[Daniel Duguay, Sustainability Specialist, Canadian Produce Marketing Association]

Madam Chair and committee members, on behalf of the Canadian Produce Marketing Association and Canada's fresh fruit and vegetable industry, I thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.

The CPMA is in a unique position as an organization representing companies from the farm gate to the dinner plate, spanning the entire fresh produce industry. CPMA's almost 900 domestic and international members are responsible for 90% of fruit and vegetable sales in Canada.

Canadians rely on a highly integrated domestic and global fresh produce supply that supports Health Canada recommendations for a healthy diet. The fresh produce supply chain moves a wide variety of perishable products over long distances in a way that ensures that Canadians have access to safe, high-quality and affordable fruits and vegetables year-round.

Packaging, including plastic packaging, is essential to maintaining the availability, quality and safety of fresh produce from the farm to the fork. The critical role played by packaging can be summed up in two phrases. The first is that packaging does 95% of what it does before it even reaches the consumer, and the second is that a produce packaging decision is a sustainability decision.

What do these statements mean? They seek to convey that ensuring food safety, minimizing food loss and waste, maximizing supply chain efficiencies and meeting produce traceability requirements all depend on the shape and composition of the packaging. However, here’s where the complexity grows. What else depends on the shape and composition of the packaging? It's the ability to keep the packaging out of landfills and meet the zero plastic waste goals both governments and industry have been pursuing for many years.

To ensure that packaging provides the required functionality and is also kept out of landfills and the environment, the industry now designs packaging that meets mission-critical performance that vendors and consumers have come to expect while accounting for the packaging’s end of life. The fresh produce industry is a leading adopter of sustainable packaging strategies. These range from lightweighting packaging and innovative elimination, such as edible coatings, to significant reuse volumes for business-to-business packaging. It has also increased the use of packaging that is both recycle-ready and increasingly recycled.

The CPMA launched its packaging working group in 2019, and the fresh produce industry endorsed the golden design rules in 2020, leading to many new designs eliminating problematic elements, moving from mixed composition to single material, as well as incorporating increased levels of recycled content when that recycled content does not compromise the performance of the packaging, such as with food contact. Substitution of alternative materials, such as fully recyclable fibre packaging or industrially compostable solutions, is being adopted where the packaging performance and function is not compromised.

These efforts are having an impact. A recent review confirmed that the fresh produce industry’s plastic usage in packaging was down 17% since 2019 when measured by the volume of material used per kilogram of food.

The diversity of fresh fruits and vegetables—the quintessential apples, oranges and bananas problem, as we like to call it—means that packaging for one commodity will need to be different from that for another. For many commodities, there are no viable alternatives today to plastic packaging that would not compromise food safety or increase food waste, cost or insecurity.

As stated, a key challenge in designing packaging for zero packaging waste is accounting for the end-of-life infrastructure, be it plastics recycling, composting or other recycling infrastructures. Although today’s discussion focuses on plastics, the goal should be to ensure that packaging choices, when combined with waste management systems, keep all packaging waste out of landfills.

To do this effectively, the following areas of innovation should be considered.

First, we should account for differing materials. Waste management systems must deal effectively with different types of materials, including, in our case, rigid and flexible forms of plastics and other materials.

Second, we should consider serving different downstream applications. Recycled content resulting from waste management systems must serve very different needs, such as those requiring food contact versus those that don't.

Third, we should promote harmonization. What is readily recyclable in one area may not be in all others. This lack of harmonization across multiple jurisdictions is one of the leading challenges for effectively designing packaging's end of life.

To close, I'll comment on a few related points.

The CPMA supports extended producer responsibility. However, there is significant concern that the rapid pace of massive cost escalation is unsustainable. This cost should not be borne by producers alone. We need waste reduction targets that are ambitious but achievable, and that respect the critical functionality that packaging provides.

To tackle this complex system-level problem, we need engagement from multiple federal players working in tandem with industry, along with their provincial counterparts.

On behalf of the fresh produce industry, I thank you for the opportunity to share comments and I welcome any questions the committee may have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

Thank you, Mr. Duguay.

We'll now begin our six-minute round of questioning. We'll start that off with MP Kitchen.

You have six minutes.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses here today. I appreciate your being here with us and the chance to hear your points.

We've heard, over a number of weeks—at least in my short time with this committee—from many different organizations on different aspects. When a lot of the Canadians listening today hear “plastic”, they just hear “plastic”. That's the only thing they hear. They don't understand the differences between bioplastics, virgin plastics, etc.

Mr. Duguay, today you mentioned the aspects of packaging and the different types of packaging. You touched a bit on different points, whether these might be regarding virgin plastics—I'm going to throw that at you—or biopolymers. These are things Canadians really don't understand. As you mentioned, when they go to that market and see their bananas or cantaloupes wrapped in plastic, or whatever it may be, they assume those plastics are exactly the same.

I'm wondering if you could comment on that.

[Daniel Duguay]

I think that's one of the challenges. Not all plastics are created equal. Again, in our industry, we rely significantly on a subset of plastic materials. One example is the PET resin that's used commonly in water bottles and food applications. It's used extensively as a rigid plastic, notably for produce clamshells.

There are other forms of plastic used—more flexible forms. An example that is pretty critical to our industry is modified atmosphere packaging. Those are the bags you see used for salad. It's a fairly complex construction that controls the environment within the bag to make sure the food doesn't spoil rapidly and maintains quality. These are examples of how we rely on a set of different materials, which, from the consumer point of view, may appear to be the same but are actually quite chemically different.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Is the cost of those plastics quite variable in range? That's obviously going to add to the cost for the consumer.

[Daniel Duguay]

I'd say that definitely the cost of the more common materials—PET is probably what I would call the “workhorse”—is not comparable to that of a more high-performance material like the ones you'd see for modified atmosphere control. This is an issue that's very cost-sensitive. Obviously, cost is a big factor in the choice of material.

How that plays out, for example, is in the incorporation of recycled content. There are definitely cost differences between virgin material and recycled-content material on the market, which play into decisions about how much recycled content can be incorporated. That's an example of how cost plays out.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Has the CPMA worked with the plastics industry to help focus their attention on what they might need, or make suggestions in any way?

[Daniel Duguay]

Our members constitute the growers, shippers and packers. We have packaging companies. We work very closely. I'd say the relationship is very tight among the packaging companies and the growers, shippers and packers.

There is a conversation with those who produce the materials when those materials need to be modified to achieve certain packaging performance requirements. I'd say that's where the conversations occur. Again, in our space, that could involve things like lightweight packaging. When we make it lighter, can the material maintain mechanical performance, even though it's a little thinner?

Another is material you want to incorporate—again, the recycled content. How do you achieve performance when you start changing the chemistry through the incorporation of recycled content?

I'd say that's where those conversations happen between our industry and those who produce the raw materials.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

In a presentation we had just last week, we heard from Food, Health and Consumer Products of Canada. They mentioned that this issue could not be borne by producers alone.

Would you agree with that statement?

[Daniel Duguay]

Right now, I'd say definitely. There's a concern that the cost of EPR systems—extended producer responsibility—is increasing at a rate that is not clearly understood. It's not understood how quickly it's going to increase and where those funds are going in terms of improving the state of the overall system.

I would agree with that statement from FHCP. I think it was Michelle who spoke on their behalf.

Yes, there are definitely concerns on the part of the produce industry that those costs are going to be increasing at a rate that requires more transparency, for sure.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

One of the concerns we see here at committee is that for everyone here in the House, it always appears that someone is always coming to the government and asking for government money and government intervention. Oftentimes, as I mentioned last week, the industry ultimately needs to self-regulate itself and also needs to self-sustain itself.

I'm just wondering about your thoughts, from your aspect, as to how the industry does self-sustain itself so that it's not always asking the federal government to deal with issues. When we look at the circular agenda, which is to reduce, reuse, recycle and dispose, how do we do that in such a manner that it's beneficial? How do you foresee that in a manner that's beneficial for Canadians?

[Daniel Duguay]

I would share two examples—

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

Excuse me. We're going to have to ask you to submit your answer in writing, because we're already well over his time.

Thank you. You can submit that.

[Daniel Duguay]

Okay. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

Thank you.

We'll now turn to MP Diab for six minutes.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Welcome to both of our witnesses.

Let me turn my attention to Dr. Allen.

Dr. Allen, I'm going to give you a chance to finish your thoughts, but before I do, I have a bit of a preamble.

I heard you, and I also heard that this is the last day of witnesses for the study. We've been meeting now for a number of weeks. We have heard loud and clear how plastic is affecting our water and, as you said, water, food and air, everything we breathe, with environmental and health risks and so on, even in the water that we're drinking. You also mentioned in your introduction that in 50 years we haven't been able to solve it using plastics.

You were starting to tell us about better alternatives for safer and more sustainable material. In what is both an environmental and a health crisis, we have to solve these problems. I'm going to ask you to start back from the first thing that you were trying to start with—the better alternatives and what we can do as a federal government. Some of it involved other levels of government, but also, more importantly, where does industry come in and where do consumers come in?

I'm going to give you the rest of my time to really hash out that particular question for me. I think that would be very helpful coming from you.

[Dr. Steve Allen]

Thank you—

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

l also think I heard in your introduction that you're coming to us from overseas. Thank you for being here this morning—or this afternoon, I guess.

[Dr. Steve Allen]

Yes. I'm currently in northern Norway.

The question you ask is a very good question, but it would take a week of us sitting down together to nail it down properly. There are alternatives. We've always had alternatives. I don't know about you, but when I was younger, there was no plastic. We had refillable bottles. Milk came in a refillable bottle.

These days, we have the ability to move vegetable material as packaging from places like Asia, Africa and India, which can supply disposable vegetable matter, instead of using vegetables to make new plastic. Environmentally, it's almost identical, because bioplastic and virgin oil-based plastic have the same effect in nature. It has the same effect on us. It's been shown to be just as toxic. Biodegradable is the same. We're not improving things by moving to these other materials. Toxically and environmentally, it's irresponsible.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

What alternatives were you suggesting?