Science and Research Committee on Sept. 26th, 2024

[Rob Morphew]

We're going to continue to sell them to our customers in five-packs and 10-packs. We're hoping that common sense will kick in and remove compostable plastics from this ban.

One of the comments that was made—and I think Jerry alluded to it as well—is that it's the optics: This looks like a till bag and, therefore, it has to be banned because it looks like one. Just because it looks like a truck that could do damage to something, does it get banned? It's one of those things. It shouldn't be banned because it looks like something.

It should be banned if it doesn't meet the criteria, but it's perfectly acceptable in the environment. I do check regularly with both our recycle facility in Calgary and the compost facility to see if there are problems with this bag. For the recycle facility, I've asked them, “Are you getting a lot of these bags coming in there and are they are cluttering up your waste stream?” The comment I got was, “If they were, we'd tell you.” I'm not getting any feedback from them on that side.

On the other piece, the city is not saying, “Hey, you know what? They're cluttering up. It's not getting through the 28 days. We have to keep sending it through to get it to compost.” That information tells me they are breaking down.

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

It's just signalling. It's similar to other members here who saw that for the first time. When ECCC saw that bag for the first time, did they lose their minds? “Oh, plastic bags are back. You can't have this.”

What were their comments like?

[Rob Morphew]

We showed them what they were and all of that sort of stuff. I don't think they gave us much of an attitude.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

That's our time. Thank you.

We're now going to turn to MP Kelloway for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

To our witnesses here in person, it's great to know you're from Calgary. I went to school in Calgary. I took my master's there—my graduate degree—and taught at the University of Calgary. I'm going to try to get to you in the latter part of my time.

However, I want to go to Dr. Levasseur.

I noticed, here in my notes, that you're the Canada research chair in measuring the impact of human activity on climate change, so I think your testimony to this committee is extremely relevant. Unfortunately, there are still people in society who do not believe that human activity leads to climate change.

Knowing we only have five minutes or so, could you please provide a summary of your most recent findings with regard to how human activity drives climate change?

[Annie Levasseur]

Yes.

In my research, we talk about climate science. We examine climate models, which show that greenhouse gas emissions have an impact on global temperature. My job is to study the various human activities by sector or product life cycle. Using climate models, we quantify the greenhouse gas emissions those systems produce and their effects on climate change.

Thanks to those tools, we can compare scenarios, for products or product life cycles, and examine entire projects and even sectors. We can look at the scenarios to identify the best ones, those that lower greenhouse gas emissions.

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

Thank you for that.

Let's drill down a little deeper.

Based on your education, which is extensive, and your research, can you expand on some of those predictions of how the environment will change if we don't change the way we use plastics in our society?

[Annie Levasseur]

The problem with plastic is that when it ends up in nature and begins to degrade, it disintegrates into particles—microplastics—and various organisms ingest those particles. There's still a lot of research being done on that, but we know that is a problem specific to plastic.

In addition, it's important to consider the entire plastic life cycle, from production to use. Extracting the raw materials used to make plastics, as well as many other materials, is very energy-intensive, so that is a major consideration. Chemicals are used to extract those raw materials. Just as ore is extracted to manufacture metals, petroleum is extracted to produce plastic. All the forest equipment used to cut the trees is another factor. The chain of production involves a range of energy inputs or chemicals.

No matter which consumer good we look at, we quantify the greenhouse gas emissions as well as the other pollutants, which cause other problems, so we can do our comparisons. Such pollutants are found in the plastic production chain, on top of the microplastics, which can cause problems if ingested at the end of their life. Metals involve other kinds of problems. Obviously, there's a risk of shifting those problems if we aren't careful. The type of problem and extent of the problem depend on which products or systems are being compared.

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

We've heard from a few witnesses that effective recycling is not going to cut the mustard. It's not going to be sufficient to curb the evolution of climate change. I'm wondering if you agree with that—whether you do or don't.

If not, what measures or practices for plastic would you recommend to reverse course or mitigate the situation?

[Annie Levasseur]

There is no single measure that will fix the problem, whether we are talking about recycling plastic or some other material. It's one of the many measures that must be put in place in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

There's no doubt that recycling plastics prevents having to manufacture virgin plastic, thus generating less pollution. Recycling obviously has benefits, but since every activity produces emissions, plastics recycling alone won't get us where we need to go in terms of meeting our ambitious and necessary climate targets. That's why I underscored the importance of transitioning to a circular economy, which means using fewer resources, and maximizing and prolonging product longevity. All of those things are very important.

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

Let's stick to that with one minute left.

In terms of your comments around the circular economy, you have three recommendations to make to government, hypothetically. Let's not make it hypothetical. We're here. You have three recommendations to government. What would they be?

[Annie Levasseur]

First is developing a circular economy road map for the various sectors. We're talking about a comprehensive problem, so every department will have a role to play. The road map needs to set out the main goals and identify the barriers to circularity at every stage of the plastic life cycle. The types of actions also need to be laid out, from restrictive regulations to prohibit certain things to eco-taxation incentives. A wide range of responses or actions are possible, but the key is developing a road map that addresses the problem in a comprehensive way, setting goals and targets that can be monitored, and putting in place the necessary regulatory framework.

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

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

We'll now turn to MP Blanchette-Joncas for six minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for the second hour.

Thank you for being here, Ms. Levasseur, and I commend you for your commitment to the well-being and protection of our environment.

In previous meetings, the committee has heard about the pollution that recycling plastics generates. Sometimes fixing one problem creates a new one, and you mentioned that in your remarks. From your perspective as the Canada research chair in measuring the impact of human activity on climate change, could you elaborate on that?

[Annie Levasseur]

Are you asking whether recycling can reduce pollution?

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

Yes, but as I understand it, there are other solutions that cause new problems.

[Annie Levasseur]

Yes, absolutely. It's worth noting.

When we want to solve a problem in good faith, but fail to take into account the life cycle of both types of material—the old plastic products and the new material proposed as a replacement—this can have a ripple effect. We've repeatedly made that mistake in the past. We want to address the issue that arises when a material that harms the environment reaches the end of its life cycle. We then replace the material with something that causes other issues, such as higher energy consumption in a particular location. In Canada, these methods have been increasingly used over the past ten years or so, both to guide the industries and to inspire public policy decision‑making.

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

Thank you.

I would like to hear your recommendations on the balance between incentives and restrictions. Other countries are more progressive in this area. Norway, for example, has increased its recycling rate by taking the opposite approach. The producers and suppliers strive to comply with recycling systems. This approach encourages people to standardize packaging and containers and also to pursue green design in order to obtain a recycling certificate.

I would like to hear your thoughts on this type of suggestion.

[Annie Levasseur]

These are great initiatives. There are indeed many barriers to recycling, such as the dispersal of material all over the place, as I said, or the identification of certain plastics. Single‑use plastics are identified, but not the other types, which makes sorting difficult. There are many barriers. If we were to make packaging standard and implement every possible measure to simplify the process, from the user to the recycling facility, we could certainly improve the situation.

Green design helps to mitigate the many effects of a product's life cycle. I touched on a few ideas, such as increasing the use of products to extend their life cycle. Around 80% of environmental effects are identified at the design stage and are difficult to change afterwards. These green design practices are extremely important.

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

Thank you.

There are other examples of ecofiscal measures, notably in Norway. We know that many municipalities in Canada—and many in Europe too—have introduced incentive pricing for waste. When people, industries, businesses and institutions dump their waste, they pay a tax based on the polluter pays principle. This encourages them to recycle and compost much more.

[Annie Levasseur]

Yes, this is important. As I said, as long as landfilling is inexpensive, it will be the preferred solution. The costs involved in collecting, sorting and transporting products to recycling facilities mean that, ultimately, the secondary material that comes out can be more expensive than the virgin material. This can mean additional costs for people who must dispose of this waste. They'll then end up using landfills. This barrier has been identified in a number of our laboratories. It remains a concern that the environmental damage caused by the final disposal of all types of plastics isn't factored into the cost of landfilling.

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

Thank you.

Would you say that Canada is a leader in the development of circular economy models?

[Annie Levasseur]

No, Canada isn't one of the leaders. In Europe and some Asian countries, things are more advanced. We're trying as hard as we can to get there, but I wouldn't say that Canada ranks among the most advanced countries in this area.

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

Thank you.

Let me give you a more specific example. The largest infrastructure project in Canadian history was the purchase of the Trans Mountain pipeline. This pipeline will transport 890,000 barrels of oil per day. In your opinion, is this a circular economy model? In my opinion, the $34 billion paid out of Canadians' taxes could have been used to implement other innovative initiatives.