Science and Research Committee on June 18th, 2024

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

I'll just interrupt you there. On the additives they're using, they're using a carbon black that comes from plants. Their supply chain for plastics is not going into the petroleum supply chain.

I'm pushing back a bit on that. I think science could be looking at ways of not creating microplastics by creating alternate forms using bioproducts.

[Karen Wirsig]

I mentioned additives. I would be very cautious about what types of additives are needed to make that plastic functional, because they will likely be similar to the additives that are needed to make petroleum-based plastics functional.

Secondly, those plastics will act the same way in the environment as any other petroleum-based plastic. That's why I say it's helpful if those things are used for durable products that can be collected at end of life. If we're using them for packaging, we know right now that a certain amount of packaging ends up leaked into the environment, where those bioplastics will end up doing the same type of damage, likely, as petroleum-based plastics.

We're very supportive of the research on durables. We obviously recognize at Environmental Defence that we have to get away from reliance on oil and gas, but it's not going to be the full answer for the kind of plastic pollution we see today.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

We're looking at the science in this committee. I sit on the environment committee, and we've done a few studies in the last couple of years on plastics. We had Environmental Defence there as part of that, so thank you for that input as well. We're trying to keep the discussion within the science and the opportunities that science brings, material science.

Plastics are used because of their low cost and ease of forming. Do you know of any other packaging solutions being researched that could be part of our study?

[Karen Wirsig]

As Mr. Drouin mentioned earlier, probably the biggest answer to the problem of packaging-related pollution is to get away from single-use packaging altogether. It's less of a material question than an infrastructural system question.

What concerns us about continuing to use plastic for packaging is the chemicals I mentioned and the propensity to create microplastics. Reuse and refill systems can use any other type of material that exists today, but the big challenge will probably be more of a process engineering type of challenge than a material science type of challenge, I suggest.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

When I open up a package now, I'm seeing a lot of cellulose versus styrofoam. I'm seeing a lot of combined packaging, where one package is being used instead of several packages.

Circular Materials is a group of users of plastics that has been formed across Canada with cross-governance. Do you see any opportunity for researchers in working with groups like Circular Materials?

[Karen Wirsig]

Where the usefulness would be is on process engineering, trying to figure out, with respect to product design, how we can design things to be, first, reduced, then reused and repaired, and then recycled. There could be some research there. Again, though, I'm not sure this is a question of material science so much as it is of process engineering. Really, we'll need to see investment from companies to change the pathway of their products and to change the value chain they are using right now to get those products to market.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

Thank you. That's our time.

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

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I would like to welcome our witness who is joining us for this second hour of our study.

Ms. Wirsig, my first questions are going to be quite broad. We are talking about plastics management. I know that, in your organization, you're fighting for a green transition. As we know, Canada is the fourth‑largest oil producer. Recently, it used our tax dollars to buy a lovely $34‑billion pipeline to produce more oil.

If we produce more oil, petroleum‑based products are bound to increase too. The government is talking about achieving zero plastic waste by 2030, but it's doing the complete opposite.

I always think I'm in a nightmare, but that's actually the reality.

I'd like to know what you think of this situation, as an expert.

[Karen Wirsig]

Thank you for the question.

I will answer you in English, because it will be more efficient.

Right now in Canada we are at a crossroads. We have collectively subsidized the pipeline you mentioned and have also collectively subsidized an increase in plastic production, notably at the Inter Pipeline plant in Alberta, at the Dow Chemical plant in Alberta and at the Nova Chemicals plant in Ontario.

In our view, if we're going to get to zero plastic waste, we have to stop subsidizing pipelines and plastic production. What I believe will happen with the new pipeline is that some of the heavy oil from Alberta will be shipped overseas. It will likely be shipped to China for the production of plastics there, which will be sent back on container ships for products that will end up back in Canada.

We really need to look at what we call the upstream problem of plastic, which is how it is made, how much of it is made and what we use it for. Obviously, subsidizing the oil and gas industry and the pipeline industry is not going to get us in the right direction of eliminating this pollution, whether we're talking about greenhouse gas emissions or plastic pollution.

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

Thank you very much.

A little earlier, you mentioned that we need to reduce our dependence on oil and gas. However, we have a government that's doing the opposite: It produces more oil and buys a pipeline to export oil to other countries.

Quebec has banned oil and gas exploration and development throughout its territory. Okay, we're privileged, and we can look to other types of savings. We're empathetic and stand in solidarity with other provinces that could make this transition.

Based on science and your expertise, how can we explain to decision‑makers, to elected officials, that they are completely at odds with what science is saying and that they are leading us straight into a wall?

[Karen Wirsig]

We agree with you that we need a real just transition away from a linear economy that right now is very much based on fossil fuel extraction and waste production. We have the means and ways to do it. Quebec is a leader in this area. There is no question in my mind that Quebec is a leader. We should be taking lessons across the country from the kinds of transitions that Quebec is already looking at.

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

Thank you.

Earlier, I put a question to the representatives of the Department of the Environment. The Auditor General, through the Commissioner of the Environment, says that the Commissioner is unable to determine whether his measures are producing results. He tells us that investments are being made, but we don't know if it's working.

I would like to know what you think about that. What concrete recommendations would you make to the government to change the situation and speed up the pace of plastics management?

[Karen Wirsig]

The federal government needs to keep doing what it's doing. Ideally, it probably should move faster and further.

There is the problem that industry is challenging federal government regulations on plastics right now, and that does slow things down. When there are court challenges, it means we have to stop putting our energy into improving policy to stop plastic pollution and have to hire lawyers and fight industry in court. This is unfortunate.

As to where the federal government is going, the leadership it has been showing at the international level is important, and we can't stop now. Really, we need global coordination. We need to globally see a commitment to reducing the amount of plastic made around the world, because even if we don't make it here, it will be made somewhere else and will come back to our shores either as products or as waste, but eventually as products. This requires a commitment to moving forward both globally and domestically at every level of government.

Am I sometimes frustrated with the pace of progress? Absolutely I am frustrated, but as long as we keep moving forward and keep identifying things we don't need to use anymore, like single-use plastics, we are heading in the right direction

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

Thank you very much.

You talk about coordination at the international level, but there isn't even coordination at the national level. There's one province that produces oil and another that produces hydroelectricity. Each province has completely different geographic characteristics and natural resources.

You talked about leadership. The government bought a pipeline with public funds at a cost of $34 billion.

Do you think this is setting an example and encouraging the provinces to make a real energy transition?

[Karen Wirsig]

We would definitely support a real energy transition and a real transition for workers and communities away from a single-use society and a one-way linear economy toward a regenerative and just economy that we can all profit from and collectively [Technical difficulty—Editor].

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

Thank you. That's our time.

Now we'll turn to MP Cannings for six minutes.

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

Thank you to Ms. Wirsig for being with us today.

I thought I'd start with this. One of the themes I've heard from the Conservatives today about the plastics issue is that all plastic is being properly put into landfills. We don't see it lying around on the streets, so what's the problem?

I know you touched on it in your opening remarks, but could you, just for a minute, go over the impacts that plastics have on Canadians directly, as in out of sight, out of mind? Conservatives say we don't have to worry about plastics in the ocean, that it's the ocean so it's out of our jurisdiction and we really don't see it much. What are the impacts on our health and our well-being, and why do we have to do this?

[Karen Wirsig]

Very quickly, there is about an equal concentration of microplastics in the Great Lakes, where I live, as there are in the ocean garbage patches, so it is very much right where we live. Wherever we are making and using plastics, it is entering our environment, and when we're using plastics, it is entering our bodies. The communities that live closest to production and disposal sites for waste and plastics are feeling the biggest brunt of that. Also, when litter gets into the environment—and it does, as about 1% of all that is made every year ends up as waste litter in the environment—it never goes away. It breaks down into smaller and smaller pieces, perhaps, but it does poison ecosystems. It affects animals, and when it's in our bodies, it is definitely having impacts on our bodies.

This is where the research needs to be topped up. We need to figure out exactly what those pathways and impacts are on our health, and figure out how we can stop making that happen.

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

From what you were saying earlier, you feel that we have to reduce our use of plastics, which is the first part of reduce, reuse and recycle. One of the other Conservative themes here is that the cost of living is going to go up if we cut down on plastics.

I'm wondering if you could comment on the impacts that cutting down on plastics would have on our cost of living.

[Karen Wirsig]

We have to look at this as an opportunity to change the way the economy works. This is why we talk about a circular economy. I'm not a believer in the term “circular economy” for plastics because I think the circular economy is a much broader concept. However, take reuse systems, for example. Over time, we've seen, in studies from around the world, that it doesn't take long to recoup the investment in reuse systems. That's because for companies it's actually cheaper and more effective to use packaging over and over again—wash it out, refill it and use it again—than it is to constantly rely on a source of virgin materials, which then have to be thrown away. Sometimes the costs of throwing things away are externalized onto others, like municipalities or even communities and individuals. However, we all bear the cost in our single-use society right now.

If we're thinking about the cost of living, there is a way of shifting that. Look at grocery companies. Grocery companies right now are wildly profitable. If they invest some of those major profits in improving environmental outcomes around single-use plastics by investing in reuse systems, it shouldn't at all affect the cost of goods. What it should do is, over time, reduce the cost of packaging and waste management for those companies.

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

I'm looking at your report “Canada's Zero Plastics Packaging Waste Report Card”. If we thought we could go down the recycling route and cut down on plastic waste, it's a sobering document. For the first conclusion on whether we can lower the waste gap by 2030, the answer is “fail”. All the other ones are “needs drastic improvement”.

I'm wondering if you could comment on that report. Aside from the very sensible conclusion of reducing our use of plastics, if we have to use them while we're moving in that direction, what things do we need to do? What can the federal government do to reduce plastic waste?

[Karen Wirsig]

The federal government needs to move faster and more deeply towards eliminating harmful and unnecessary single-use products from our lives. You can ban more single-use products. Then work with every level of government to ramp up reuse systems to replace single-use. To me, those would be the top two priorities for government policy.

When it comes to the science and technology agenda, we need to get a better hold on the pathways of plastic pollution and the impacts on our health. The federal government should definitely be focusing on that so that we can know ultimately, when it comes to prioritizing, which plastics have a social use. I'm not somebody who says we're never going to have plastics anymore. We will probably still have plastic, but we need to decide when the benefits outweigh the costs. We are nowhere near doing that now.

The low-hanging fruit is obviously single-use plastic packaging. Let's start there. The government has done a very good job of starting there. It's just that we need to go faster and further to get to the goal of zero plastic waste.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

Thank you. That's your time.

We'll now start the second round with MP Rempel Garner for five minutes.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to pick up on some of the questions my colleague Mr. Longfield brought up with regard to substitute goods.

It sounded like you weren't supportive of finding substitute goods for some of these products. I'm wondering why you would push back on looking at, especially, research into substitute goods for certain types of plastics.

[Karen Wirsig]

From our point of view, the real issue is that right now we live in a throwaway society where most of our goods are not durable and repairable. They're not designed for reuse. They're not designed for a long life, so—