Science and Research Committee on Sept. 19th, 2024

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

To the two remaining witnesses, is there anything to add to those four pillars that we're focused on here, or something else that we haven't mentioned yet in terms of importance?

[Mohammad Arjmand]

Yes, I can go for the policy-making.

I know there is a regulation in the U.S. right now that for some of the plastics they are using, it is recommended to combine them with a specific portion of recycled plastics, such as, let's say, 60% virgin plastics, 40% recycled plastics. There is a technology behind that, and it's a requirement for some products. That's number one.

Number two, I think that public education is very important. If we make the material from recycled plastic, if there is no market for that, we cannot go anywhere. If there is public education showing that.... If there is a recycled plastic and people are interested in purchasing that, then all pieces of the puzzle will actually follow that. It's very important to make sure we have public education.

The third one is that even if the government does its job very well and the companies do their job very well, if we still don't have public education in terms of separating the plastic at the source, we cannot go anywhere.

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

Before we go to the witness who is online.... That was one of the key elements so far. There are so many interesting levels of testimony, but in terms of public education there are two ways of looking at this: Does the strategy drive the culture, whether it be work or consumer, or does the culture drive the strategy? I would say that a good deal of this is around changing culture. You need to have the policy, the investment, the incentive and the de-risk element. However, the culture needs to change in terms of this whole process, whether it be from a consumer standpoint or from a business standpoint. Thank you for sharing that.

I think I have five seconds left. My apologies to the witness who is online.

Thanks, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

Mr. Langdon, if you would like to send a written response to have a chance to answer that question, that would be welcome.

Thank you, Mr. Kelloway.

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

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Mathieu-Poulin, I would like to go back to the federal plastics registry, which we discussed earlier and which will come into force in September 2025, as you know. It's a good idea and we hope that it will not be dropped, but it is a year away and there could be a change in government by then. You never know.

As you know, Canada has not reinvented the wheel. Comparable registries were created in Japan in 2018, in Australia in 2021, and by the European Union in 2018. So some countries have already had this kind of registry for three to five years. As an expert, when did you say that such a registry was necessary to truly achieve our ambitious objectives?

[Charles David Mathieu-Poulin]

That's a good question.

It was not beforehand, but rather in response to the registry. The more a government knows about the various types of plastics in use in Canada, the better able it will be to develop effective public policy. So one of the benefits of the registry is that it will provide more information.

Regarding the way the information is collected, as mentioned earlier, are we asking for the right information? There is a great deal of plastic in durable goods, such as in fisheries and cars, that we don't know much about. There is a lot of talk about packaging because that's what we see and have at home as consumers. So another benefit of the registry is that it goes beyond the plastics we have around us. On the other hand, people do not necessarily know how much plastic they have.

I don't think industry asked for this registry. It could nonetheless support sound decision-making and public policy development that is more in keeping with what industry wants.

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

My next question will be quick.

Since plastic is a petroleum product, does a country that produces more oil produce more plastic? We know that Canada gave Trans Mountain a $34 billion gift when it bought its pipeline. Is it possible that that will generate more plastic products, which we are trying to eliminate? As a recycling expert, are you concerned about that?

[Charles David Mathieu-Poulin]

The greatest concern is not necessarily the volume of plastic, but rather the price of virgin resin in relation to recycled resin. We talked about that earlier. Any financial assistance given to the oil and gas industry serves to lower the price of virgin resin. That makes it even more difficult for people who produce recycled resin to enter the market. That's why we mentioned eliminating risks earlier.

So it is not necessarily a question of quantity but rather of price. Perhaps the recycled resin industry would have to be given the same assistance as the oil and gas industry receives to produce virgin plastic. It should be noted that both are produced by the same industries.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

That's our time, I'm afraid, but I think we do get your point.

Thank you. Two and a half minutes go by very quickly.

Now we'll turn to MP Cannings for his two and a half minutes, please.

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

Thank you.

I'm going to turn back to Mr. Langdon and ask a similar sort of high-level question.

I think Dr. Arjmand brought this up. We need to have prevention, collection and recovery. Those are the three main tasks about plastic recycling. I'm wondering if, for each of those, you could say what the real challenge is, how much we could accomplish with each of those and what the tasks are ahead of us. What is the single most important thing to fix in each of those subjects: prevention and reducing plastic use, how we collect it, and how we recover a usable product?

[Allen Langdon]

On the collection side, I think we're putting in systems across Canada to better collect the material. We're doing it in a way where you'll have uniform material lists. They will no longer be different from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. They'll be consistent, first in each province and then across the country. People won't have to guess about what can be recycled. That will allow us to accelerate and amplify the kind of public education required to get people to do the right thing and put that material in the recycling box.

From there, we go to the sorting infrastructure. After moving to a consistent and unified recycling system in the collection, we can then move to a more efficient sorting system where the material coming into these places becomes more uniform and consistent.

Finally, from there, we get to the question of whether we need secondary sorting or whether there is other technology needed to recycle some of the plastics. As we're investing hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars in establishing these recycling systems across the country, the further investment is where we really need to de-risk. There's going to be a variety of technologies, and not all of them may prove to be the ultimate solution. We need to find the ones that are, and that's going to take some trial and error along the way.

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

How confident are you that we can reach zero in the near future, in terms of zero plastics in the environment?

[Allen Langdon]

I think that's the goal. I think it depends on the timeline. I don't think it's something we're going to achieve in the next five years, but I think we're going to put the foundation in place to have a much more circular economy for plastics, one that gives us a better hope of reducing plastic waste going into the future. Ultimately, that should be an objective, to reduce the amount of leakage of plastic material into the natural environment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

Thank you for that testimony.

Now we turn to our next Conservative questioner for five minutes. I'm not sure if it's MP McLean or MP Kitchen.

[A voice]

It's 4:42 p.m. We have another panel.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

Oh, so that's the end. I'm sorry. I was just following along. Thank you.

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

Madam Chair, I'm more than happy to ask questions.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

Well, actually, I think Mr. Viersen has a flight to catch and doesn't want to go late tonight, so maybe you're on the next panel. We will now suspend.

Thank you to the witnesses—Dr. Mohammad Arjmand, Allen Langdon and Charles David Mathieu-Poulin—for their testimony and participation in the study of innovation, science and research in recycling plastic. It was fascinating. I think you can tell we all enjoyed your testimony. If you have anything else you would like to add, feel free to circulate it to the clerk so that we may have additional information for our study.

We will suspend briefly now to allow the witnesses to leave, and we'll resume with the second panel. For members attending via Zoom, please stay connected to this session.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

I know some of you have planes to catch, so we'll get started without further ado.

I'll make a few comments for the benefit of the new witnesses. Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference.... Actually, I'll skip that. It's Lloyd, and I think he knows what to do. Interpretation for those on Zoom.... Yes, I think Lloyd knows that, too.

It's now my pleasure to welcome, from Oceana Canada, Anthony Merante, senior plastics campaigner; and, from Réseau Environnement, Mathieu Laneuville, president and chief executive officer; and Céline Vaneeckhaute, Canada research chair in resource recovery and bioproducts engineering and associate professor at Université Laval.

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

I start with Mr. Merante. The floor is yours for an opening statement of up to five minutes.

[Anthony Merante, Senior Plastics Campaigner, Oceana Canada]

Thank you for inviting me, Anthony Merante, the senior plastics campaigner on behalf of Oceana Canada, to speak about plastics recycling today.

Briefly, my knowledge of plastics stems from my 15-plus years experience in the fields of environmental science and environmental policy at both the national and the subnational levels.

Oceana is a science-based organization that focuses on the reduction of non-essential single-use plastics and the protection of our oceans. My remarks will focus on single-use plastics, their recyclability and associated pollution.

In 2023, Oceana published a landmark report entitled “Breaking the Plastic Cycle”, of which an electronic copy and physical copies are available. It outlined a road map to reduce Canada's plastic packaging waste by one-third through policy interventions that remove non-recyclables and increase recyclability and reuse of common products.

On the state of plastic pollution, Canada generates 4.3 million tonnes of plastic waste annually, while only 8% of that is mechanically recycled. From 2012 to 2019, the amount of plastics entering the Canadian marketplace rose by 20% to 6.1 million tonnes, which outpaced both economic growth and population growth. In 2019, packaging items such as bottles, containers and bags made up 37% of all plastic products manufactured for Canadian consumption.

The evidence is clear. We are over-plasticizing our lives with single-use, non-durable plastics. Our recycling system is broken and inefficient today. The combination of overproduction and Canada's transition away from collection and reuse systems to linear single-use disposal systems has resulted in a national pollution crisis.

On damages, it is the very durability of plastics, which is touted as an advantage, that lends to their extensive harm. Once plastics enter the environment, they never really go away. Slowly, plastic products break down into microplastics that persist for hundreds of years. In context, a plastic fork used for five to 10 minutes for a takeout meal may see the entire population of the planet turn over twice. The chance of that fork being recycled is next to none currently, but its odds of ending up in the environment are nearly guaranteed. Plastics are found in every corner of the planet, including Arctic sea ice, rain clouds and our food. Plastics and their chemicals are now being found in the major organs of the human body, with links to infertility, hormone disruption and diseases like cancers and Alzheimer's.

Single-use plastic packaging makes up over half of plastic waste annually, and the largest amounts are coming from our grocery stores, beverage bottles, food service ware, pallet wrap involved in shipping and transport, and the rapidly growing e-commerce sector. The leading causes of this waste generation are the loss of circular, returnable and refillable systems, specifically for non-alcoholic beverage and food containers; the use of plastic polymers like polystyrene and polyvinyl chloride that just do not mesh with our current infrastructure; material swapping of infinitely recyclable and refillable packaging like glass and metal for cheap and flexible plastics; the addition of colourful dyes, additives and chemicals to alter the appearance of plastics; and mixed materials on a single product that are discarded by consumers as a whole. As an example, pop bottles are made from PET, and their caps are made of polystyrene. The ribbons could be made of polypropylene, vinyl or polyester film, and the shrink wrap that is binding them is made of polyethylene.

It's estimated that 7.8 billion dollars' worth of plastics go to landfills annually. This plastic pollution is harming not only our environment but also our wallets.

The solutions are simple and clear: prohibit the manufacturing and sale of products that simply cannot be recycled, reused or refilled; standardize product design to eliminate non-recyclability and to enable circularity; and work with the largest players per sector to develop systems and products that are truly circular and that are not landfill- or incinerator-bound. Of note, 82% of Canadians support regulations like these, regardless of their voting history, and 80% of Canadians feel that it is the federal government's responsibility to lead the charge on plastics pollution. Currently, over 170 nations are developing international plastics regulations. This is a massive market study.

Lastly, advanced recycling, chemical recycling, pyrolysis and gasification are often cited as solutions to recycling the non-recyclable. However, these have been proven to fail when applied at scale and have been highly polluting. For example, the Enerkem biofuels centre in Edmonton is inoperable and was plagued with failures since its opening. These new forms of waste management are lobbied to governments, the public and decision-makers without transparent data and with unsubstantiated claims of success.

Plastics do have a place in our world, but that place is not our oceans.

I'm happy to stop there and take questions from members of the committee. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

Thank you. We're a bit over time, but that was a very compelling opening statement, so thank you for that.

Now we'll turn to Mathieu and Céline. You have five minutes for your opening statement, if you'd like to proceed. Thank you.

[Mathieu Laneuville, President and Chief Executive Officer, Réseau Environnement]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Members of Parliament, it's my privilege to be here. I'm Mathieu Laneuville. I'm the president and chief executive officer of Réseau Environnement, the largest association of environmental experts in Quebec. On that note, an Éco Entreprises Québec representative spoke to the committee earlier today. This organization is a member of Réseau Environnement. I'm an engineer, but I also have a certificate in the circular economy from Cambridge University.

I'm joined today by my colleague, Céline Vaneeckhaute, an associate professor at Université Laval and the Canada research chair in resource recovery and bioproducts engineering.

As I said, our association is privileged to be here to report on the challenges faced by our experts. Our association comprises over 2,000 members from the public, private and academic sectors.

Before talking about our recommendations, I want to focus on the issue at hand. This issue is the need to take action with regard to plastics. I think that my colleague, Mr. Merante, spoke at length about the implications of having more plastic than fish in our oceans by 2050. We know that fish ingest microplastics and that we eat these fish. We also inhale plastic particles. This obviously poses environmental and human health issues.

We need to consider whether we want the sea and its inhabitants smothered in plastic waste. Do we want our brains contaminated? Science currently estimates that 0.5% of our brain mass contains microplastics. If we ignore this pollution, we'll be turning the planet into a garbage dump. We need to consider whether we want to wait until fish and humans have been turned into plastic garbage dumps before taking action.

In the 1980s, the alarm bells rang about carbon pollution from oil. We believe that the time has come to sound the alarm again about the impact of oil on plastic pollution. Our human health and our environment are at stake.

The good news is that technical solutions do exist. We just need to apply the principle of reduce, reuse, recycle, recover and dispose, in order of priority.

The main message from our expert members is still the age‑old notion of reduction at the source. In our view, the first solution is to eliminate or ban single‑use plastics and encourage reusable and bulk options. If it isn't possible to reduce the use of plastic, we recommend recycling plastic. As Mr. Merante said, around 90% of our plastics aren't currently recycled. We have a long way to go.

I'll say it again. There are solutions. One solution is eco‑labelling. Right now, to determine whether a product is recyclable, we need to look at the number on its logo. These numbers are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6. I challenge you to find out which number indicates that the product can't be recycled. By the way, it's number 6. That said, it's hard for people to make sense of everything. We suggest simply having a check mark when the product is recyclable and a cross when it isn't. There are simple solutions here.

We also recommend a ban on labelling compostable plastics whether they're biodegradable, biocompostable or any other related term. This contaminates our bundles and the material and creates a great deal of confusion for the public.

Another way to improve recycling is through information, awareness and education. We need to inform people about sorting methods. In Quebec, for example, Recyc‑Québec has developed a mobile application called “Where does it go?”. Using a cellphone, we can find out whether to dispose of a product in the compost bin, the waste bin or the recycling bin.

We also need to increase public trust in the recycling system by raising awareness. Right now, many people are opting out because the results make them feel discouraged. We also need to educate young people during their school years.

A key component of our recommendations is green taxation. The previous speakers talked about this, and we'll come back to it later. Virgin resin from abroad should no longer be more affordable than recycled resin on our domestic market. Our economy, health and environment are at stake. We need bonuses for containers made from recycled plastics and maluses for containers made from virgin plastics.

Other ways to improve the recycling system include regulations. California requires a minimum percentage of recycled content in all packaging. Canada could learn from this. We also need to improve the quality of our infrastructure, particularly sorting facilities, to ensure a better quality of plastic and to make it more cost‑effective to use our recycled plastics.

Another significant issue for our members is green design. It's probably the key to getting things right. We must use science. I think that everyone around the table today relies heavily on research. Let's use science to find the best packaging for each product category. Let's then regulate packaging according to use and expert findings in life‑cycle analyses, from production to consumer use. In our view, the government must set an example. For instance, when will Parks Canada be required to use tables, chairs and furniture made from recycled plastic? This would promote the national economy and the circular economy and create more prospects for our recycled plastics.

Of course, if we can't reduce, reuse and recycle, we can always recover orphan plastics or non‑recyclable plastics using chemical technologies. My colleague, Céline Vaneeckhaute, is an expert in this field.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

Thank you. That's our time.

[Mathieu Laneuville]

Thank you.