Science and Research Committee on Oct. 3rd, 2024

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

What would be a solution? Right now, we're heading towards a path, or we're down a path, where if the Liberal government gets its way, there'll be no plastic available, so food costs are going to grow, resulting in more poverty out there.

I'm more worried about the food bank usage. Right now, we know there are a couple of million Ontarians who need to rely on the food bank. It's going to grow that much higher. Just on the food bank aspect, do you guys work with the local food banks on real-world solutions to feed people? Does some of the extra produce or some of the shrinkage that isn't bad end up at the food bank, hopefully?

[Daniel Duguay]

There's a very strong working relationship among retailers for produce that's basically not sold but still consumable. It's a very different challenge, of course, from produce that spoils and isn't consumable. Those are efforts that we're working on, and in fact there's a study coming out next month that will actually speak to the opportunities to improve that.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Thank you so much for your testimony, from the people who like to eat three meals a day.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

Now we're going to turn to MP Kelloway for five minutes, please.

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Thanks, Madam Chair.

Thanks to the witnesses.

Dr. Allen, I want to thank you for very candid testimony. Very few times do we hear the words, which you used in your testimony, “global environmental health crisis”. I think that is a pretty profound statement, and actually, I think it's a pretty profound moment.

When I first came to this committee and when I heard that we were studying plastics, I wasn't sure what I was getting myself into. I've learned quite a lot from a variety of witnesses, including you today.

There are a couple of things. I mentioned the global environmental crisis. I want to go there, and then I want to go to what you talked about towards the end of your testimony, which is how we solve the problem.

I'm wondering if you can just unpack briefly—because I want to come back with another question for you—the health outcomes related to microplastics or related to, as you put it, most if not all plastics. I'm wondering if you could just break it down for people. I think it is up to government and legislatures to have a serious conversation, to not use political talking points, to move the ball forward and to make sure everyone is safe and secure, which is a fundamental right of every parliamentarian. Can you give us a sense of what this causes in individuals, with a little detail? Then I will come back with a second question.

[Dr. Steve Allen]

Thank you.

Let me give you a little scenario. They use plastics for drug delivery, and it's a very specific design and shape because it can pass through blood-brain barriers. It can pass through any part of the body because it's so spiky that the body can't see it. It doesn't generate the immune response. When you look at microplastics under the microscope, you will find they're the same shape. That's why they can move into and out of our bodies quite easily. Studies done on scallops and things showed that when they fed them microplastics and nanoplastics, they were in every part of the animals within a few hours.

Currently, if you have a look at what can pass into the blood through the gut, it can be up to 150 microns, which is quite big, but with nanoplastics—and I do a lot of work with nanoplastics—there's nothing to stop them going everywhere in the body. They contain an endocrine-disrupting chemical. They can absorb DDT and all the other chemicals that we prefer to forget about. They can stick to those nanoplastics. Imagine what that could do to a developing baby's pituitary gland. If you had enough of those particles lodged in that gland, what could that do to the development of a human? What could it do to the development of any creature on the planet?

We talk about the guts of worms being blocked up because their mouths are bigger than their anuses. They normally take a whole particle in, digest it and then release it. However, plastics block them up so that they're full forever, until they die of starvation.

My research is in remote areas, and I'm looking at those because these are our reserves for all that biota that keeps the world working, and we're flooding them with so much atmospheric plastic falling onto the ground there—in hurricanes in Newfoundland, for example. At the peak season, when everything's growing and everything's feeding, we're suddenly feeding them literally tons of plastic particles at the exact size that they want to eat, and they smell like food. They release pheromones like the EDCs, the endocrine-disrupting chemicals. All these chemicals look like food.

We've had it in breast milk and placental serum. It's in testes. It was in baby's first poo. It's in every part of the human body already, and it's a foreign object. We have not developed any resistance to this material. We only got nanomaterials at all when we started smelting metals. Thankfully, they were mostly inert, except for lead, which we know does bad things to us.

Plastics have no place in our lives. Very soon, we're going to know just how bad this is.

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Thank you for that.

How much time do I have left?

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

You have 19 seconds.

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Okay.

In one of the pieces in your opening statement, I believe—or one of the testimony interactions—you talked about how government needs to play the role and to regulate. I appreciate that very much.

I also know that there's a tendency for agendas to get hijacked and for an ostrich approach to dealing with a fundamental problem. You talked about eight million people dying because of carbon emissions. Sometimes you wouldn't know that in this place. You mentioned that educating is a part of it, but not all of it. I do believe that we need to educate the public on the seriousness of the things you just brought up.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

Okay, you can submit that in writing if you'd like.

[Dr. Steve Allen]

Yes, that's the government's job. The government needs to know it first.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

Excuse me, Dr. Allen. You can submit that in writing unless another questioner here takes it up; I'm sorry.

Now we will turn to MP Blanchette-Joncas for two and a half minutes, please.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Allen, I agree with you. The government has a very big responsibility when it comes to defending and protecting the environment. Now is not the time for education; now is the time for action. Everyone already has an overview of the situation. I would like a reality check.

In 2019, the current government promised to ban the use of certain single-use plastics. It was all very promising. In 2020, it imposed standards and penalties to hold companies that manufacture plastic, collect waste or recycle materials accountable. In 2021, the most widely used excuse of the decade was the pandemic. All of a sudden, there was nothing they could do to regulate plastic. However, when it came time to subsidize oil and gas companies to help them get through the economic crisis, plenty could be done. Then the government implemented a very partial regulation on only six of the hundreds of items in circulation. In addition, no ban on manufacturing or sales will be in effect until December 20, 2025. That is convenient, since it will not happen until after the next election, when we may have a new government.

Do you think these measures will really make a difference in terms of protecting the environment and recycling plastic?

[Dr. Steve Allen]

Honestly, any step forward is a good step, but the report card is, obviously, that we must try harder.

I'm sorry, guys, but I'm quite disappointed with the Canadian government's approach to this when its main function here is to protect the environment and the people of Canada. What I'm seeing is people defending the plastics, and I really don't understand it. I thought your job was the environment and the people.

I'd love to sit down with all you MPs in a room and have you explain to me exactly why you think that way, because as a scientist, I can see the reality of the situation. There's no ideology. I don't have a cross to bear. I don't have anything like that. I'm just telling you what's wrong with the planet and what's wrong with what you're planning to do. I think it's irresponsible to try to recycle now. We don't have the technology. We don't have the infrastructure.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

That's very clear, Mr. Allen. I hope that the people who make the decisions will listen to us and, above all, know what decisions to make in the future.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

Thank you.

Now we will turn to Mr. Cannings for two and a half minutes, please.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Thank you.

I'm going to stay with Dr. Allen.

I know you've studied the issue of plastic pollution around the world—in Asia, etc. We've all heard of the big blobs of plastic pollution in jars out in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. I know from going to island nations such as Samoa that they're facing a huge problem of tonnes of plastic washing up on their shores.

I'm a bird biologist. A friend of mine was studying the albatross nesting on the Midway Islands, out literally in the middle of the Pacific. Those albatross feed on the coasts of British Columbia, bringing food from there to their young at Midway. He had sights of a young albatross coughing up a toothbrush.

I just wonder if you could comment on the worldwide scale of this problem and on how all that pollution from around the world, all that plastic, affects us here in Canada and everywhere.

[Dr. Steve Allen]

There are no borders in nature.

There are between 12 and 20 million tonnes being pushed into the ocean every year. That's got to go somewhere. When plastic breaks up in the ocean, whether it's through rubbing on the sand on the beach, UV or salt, it can come back in the air. It doesn't matter where that plastic went in; you can be breathing it in Canada and anywhere else on the planet.

My research is up in the free troposphere as well, which is above the clouds. That's the superhighway for plastic and all chemicals. Plastic can go around the world in two weeks, so as for shipping your plastic away, there's no “away” for plastic. There's no, “I will just send it to Asia, because they can recycle it.” It doesn't get recycled; it's burned. It gets pushed into the river. There's ample proof of that. Read the Interpol reports, please. I recommend everyone that does that.

I'm currently researching plastics up here in the Arctic, but my NGO is tackling plastic waste going into the river in Asia as a start, because the majority of plastics in the oceans come through Asia, because western countries thought Asia was a good place to dump their waste. They didn't have any way to recycle it.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

Thank you. That's our time.

I want to thank Dr. Steve Allen and Daniel Duguay for your testimonies and participation in the committee study. If you have further testimonies you'd like to submit in writing, you may do so with the clerk.

We're now going to suspend briefly and get ready for our second panel.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

Welcome back. We'll get started again, please.

For those of you participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mic. 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.

It's now my pleasure to welcome our witnesses.

From the Council of the Great Lakes Region, we have Mark Fisher, president and chief executive officer.

From Selkirk College, we have Jason Taylor, department head of Selkirk Technology Access Centre, by video conference.

From Sustainable Strat, we have Marina Pietrosel, principal, of sustainable development and compliance.

Welcome to all three of you.

Up to five minutes will be given for your opening remarks, after which we'll proceed with rounds of questions.

Mr. Fisher, I invite you to make an opening statement of up to five minutes, please.

[Mark Fisher, President and Chief Executive Officer, Council of the Great Lakes Region]

Thank you, Madam Chair and honourable members of the science and research committee, for the opportunity to speak to you today as part of your plastics recycling study.

Formed in 2013, the Council of the Great Lakes Region, or CGLR, works across the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, as well as eight states in the U.S., from New York to Minnesota. Our mission is to bring the region's diverse perspectives and interests together across borders and sectors to accelerate the transition to a sustainable future.

What does this mean in practice? For CGLR, it means advocating supportive policies, business strategies, innovations and public-private sector investments that will ensure that the region's economy, North America's industrial engine, is growing responsibly; all of the region's people are thriving; and the Great Lakes, the largest freshwater system in the world, is protected for future generations. If we're successful, our aim is to create the first sustainable region in the world.

A significant challenge the region is facing today is how to sustainably manage the materials we use as consumers and as industries and reduce waste, especially plastics.

Why is this a challenge? Research, as well as data from the Great Lakes plastics cleanup, which CGLR runs with Pollution Probe, shows that 80% of the pollution washing up on the shoreline is plastic in the form of litter or sometimes the accidental release of pellets used in plastics manufacturing.

In addition, studies by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and The Recycling Partnership in the U.S. indicate that over 80% of the valuable plastics we use as consumers are ending up in landfill.

CGLR's own research estimates that based on landfill audit data, we are throwing out roughly 12 million imperial tons of valuable plastics worth over $2 billion Canadian every year in our garbage. As a result, CGLR launched the circular Great Lakes initiative and released a five-year action plan in 2022 to mobilize stakeholders in sectors to forge a future without plastic waste and pollution.

Pertinent to this committee's work, the action plan focuses on driving projects and change in six key areas where we see critical gaps, notably for consumer plastics: the collection of plastics, such as curbside and drop-off programs; the technological advancements required in our recycling infrastructure, such as mechanical recycling, secondary sortation and new chemical recycling solutions, to expand the sortation and processing of plastics; the development of competitive and more diverse end markets for a wider range of plastic materials; the need to inform consumer behaviours through increased education and engagement; the policies required to enable sustainable materials management practices; and the investments required by government and business to support and accelerate the development of new infrastructure and packaging solutions that are more sustainable and recyclable.

By facilitating projects in these areas with many partners, we want to help facilitate the achievement of a 50% recycling rate in the region by 2030. This is consistent with the zero plastic waste strategy adopted by CCME as well as the national recycling strategy put forward by the U.S. EPA.

From a resource recovery and recycling standpoint, a key aspect of a circular economy, this will require the ability to divert an additional three million tons of plastics away from landfills annually. That's roughly 2.7 metric tonnes in Canadian figures. Given that we are currently recycling, on average, about 9% of consumer plastics in Canada and the United States, achieving a 50% recycling rate will be no small effort, but it can be done.

However, achieving a 50% recycling rate for consumer products does not equal a circular economy. A circular economy, by design, is achieved when we can eliminate material waste and pollution, circulate products in the economy at their highest value and regenerate nature. Therefore, in considering innovations, science and research in recycling plastics, or, more importantly, achieving a circular economy, I encourage you to consider the following.

First, new legislation and regulatory certainty are certainly needed to enable the economic and societal change necessary to transition to a circular economy. Ensuring that each level of government is doing its part and is aligned will be crucial with respect to the standards, regulations and targets that will catalyze circularity, such as extended producer responsibility, recycled content, recycling rates and labelling.

Second, in considering source reduction measures or product alternatives, you must remember that all products have an environmental impact, and in many applications plastics today continue to be the best option for a variety of reasons. Adopting a life-cycle approach will be vital for evaluating the trade-offs between the socio-economic and environmental impacts of different materials and circular approaches.

Third, other countries, such as the United States, are investing heavily in materials science and new manufacturing processes, creating the conditions for new industries and products to be developed and deployed at scale. The Government of Canada must do the same, and more, through its research granting councils and investments in small businesses and industry-driven R and D if Canada is to have a significant presence in the green economy.

Fourth, we will not be able to recover all of the materials from consumers and the industrial, commercial and institutional sector, not just households, if we rely solely on mechanical recycling solutions or traditional recycling. Permitting or creating the legal framework for the development and use of new and emerging sortation approaches or other material processing methods like chemical recycling is strongly encouraged.

Last, consumer education and behaviour change will play an important role in reducing waste, increasing recycling and ultimately achieving a circular economy. Therefore, we must ensure that the practices we are asking consumers to adopt today are easy to understand, affordable and easy to access.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I'd be pleased to take your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

Thank you.

We'll now turn to Jason Taylor for an opening statement of five minutes.

[Jason Taylor, Department Head, Selkirk Technology Access Centre, Selkirk College]

Good afternoon, and thank you for the opportunity to speak before the committee.

As a department head and researcher at the Selkirk Technology Access Centre here in the Kootenay region of British Columbia, we have really focused on supporting industry and community in our learning region through research and development and through training in advanced manufacturing and advanced computing.

Since 2020, the STAC has been fortunate enough to work with some amazing industry and community partners throughout our region to foster circular economy practices and to advance both education and research in plastics recycling and reuse.

I also want to share a few examples of projects we've been working on. I'll start with KC Recycling.

KC Recycling is here in Trail, B.C., and they recycle car batteries as one of their outputs or business models. They recycle polypropylene from car batteries in the amount of 200 tonnes per month and are looking to double and possibly even triple that into the future. One hundred per cent of this plastic is currently being packaged and shipped in pellet form across North America to go back into batteries or other automotive industry plastics.

The research we've been working on with KC Recycling directly has been to use these pellets as something else. We've successfully been able to use it as a feedstock for 3D printing and injection moulding. We've also been looking at other opportunities locally, and that's the key here. Instead of having this material shipped here, processed, and then shipped back out across the world, we're looking at what we can use this plastic for locally in the industries that we support, such as mining, hydroelectric power generation, forestry and, of course, mass timber.

Another key partner of this partnership and most partnerships that we've been working with here at the STAC is the partnership and involvement with students. We have a program here called the digital fabrication and design program, and a key opportunity in that program is to teach about sustainability, a design for reuse and possibly even the elimination of plastics in some cases.

Another partner we've been working with is Tempus 3D. Tempus is an industrial 3D printing company. The industrial process they use is a powdered material called PA12. Out of each cycle of the print, there is about 5% to 20% of waste plastic that cannot be recycled in its own system. What we've been looking at are opportunities to print that waste. One way is a printer we just purchased that will print that machine's waste for industrial level 3D-printed objects and materials.

Another great partner that we work with is the Kootenay Outdoor Recreation Enterprise. KORE has started a new program called the KORE Re-Hub, and it's all around outdoor gear recycling or circularity. You have a ski boot, and a part breaks on it, and you find out after two years of owning that ski boot that the manufacturer does not make that part anymore and you can't buy it, so what happens to that product? Oftentimes, it gets thrown into the garbage, and you have to go buy a new one. The industry loves that, but we don't. We've been looking at supporting, both through education and producing parts for outdoor gear, that circularity and repairing or reusing those parts in other ways.

The primary key to all of these partnerships is research, but it's also about embedding the circular economy principles and techniques into our curriculum. We've started with our digital fabrication and design program. It will be introduced through our engineering program and many others as a core direction that we would really like to introduce into all curriculum thought processes at the college here.

We believe the environmental and economic benefits these practices will introduce when students are designing for the next big company will be key.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

That's the end of your time for your opening statement, but perhaps you you can cover the rest of your comments through the questions.

We will now turn to Marina Pietrosel for an opening statement of five minutes.