ENVI Committee Meeting

     Order. Good morning, everybody.

    This is meeting number 44 of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. This is a public meeting.

     For those in person, please remember to follow the health and safety guidelines for your microphones to prevent audio or feedback incidents for our translators.

     We will commence today's study on single-use plastics prohibition regulations with the first of two sets of witnesses. For the first hour, we have Dr. Chelsea Rochman, assistant professor at the University of Toronto; Scott Thurlow, senior adviser, government affairs at Dow Canada; and Dr. Peter Ross, senior scientist at the Raincoast Conservation Foundation.

    You will each have five minutes to present some opening statements. I do have a little time sign to warn you when you're at a minute and when you're out of time, when you'll have to wrap up, please. We'll use that throughout the session.

     We will begin with you, Dr. Rochman. The floor is yours.

    Thank you, Chair Miedema and Vice-Chairs Ross and Bonin, for the invitation. I'm really happy to have the opportunity to share my expertise.

    My name is Chelsea Rochman, and I'm an associate professor at the University of Toronto. I have been researching plastic pollution for nearly 20 years. My research is widely known for increasing our understanding of the prevalence, persistence and ecological effects of plastics in the environment. I study plastic debris globally, including here in the Great Lakes as well as in the Canadian Arctic. I'm often asked to advise governments on the issue of plastics in the environment. This includes the United Nations and every level of government in both the United States and Canada. I recently co-led a working group on monitoring and risk for the International Joint Commission, a binational organization created by Canada and the U.S. to protect our resources and boundary waters, including in the Great Lakes. Today, I will focus on the evidence demonstrating that plastic pollution is ubiquitous, persistent and harmful.

    Plastic pollution is increasing, and if we want to protect wildlife, we must focus on waste reduction, which is a proven solution. According to the Government of Canada, we lost 90,000 tonnes of plastics to the environment in 2019, which is equivalent to 53 million garbage bags of plastic waste, a figure predicted to increase 19% by 2040.

    I can tell you a bit about what I see in Toronto. I supervise students who clean and monitor plastic floating in our harbour. They cover about a two-kilometre stretch of the waterfront. Every year, we remove hundreds of thousands of pieces of plastic from the water. The most common items we see are single-use plastics, including food wrappers, straws, plastic bags, bottle caps and cigarette filters. Although we clean a lot, we don't make a dent. Cleanup will not solve this problem, and we are currently failing to keep Toronto's waters clean.

    Toronto's Don River is among the most urbanized in Canada. We estimate that this river contributes roughly tens of thousands of plastic items, plus 500 billion microplastics, defined as one micron to five millimetres in size, into Lake Ontario annually. Downstream, the fish have the highest levels of microplastics reported globally. Microplastics are in every fish that we sample from Lake Ontario as part of the government's sport fish program. That's every fish.

    The weight of evidence about the effects of microplastics has grown quite a bit. There is no doubt that microplastics can harm organisms. Scientists now have enough data to synthesize toxicity results into risk assessments. Most recently, within the International Joint Commission, we quantified the risk of microplastics to the Great Lakes. Based on our findings, our group of scientists and policy-makers recommended that microplastics be listed as a chemical of mutual concern under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.

    Across the lakes, there is a consistent release of plastic. It is ubiquitous and persistent, and it is found at concentrations that cross risk thresholds. Related to this, plastic manufactured items fit the definition of toxic under the CEPA, which states that a substance is toxic if it enters the environment in a concentration, or under conditions, that may have a harmful effect. Plastic manufactured items break down into microplastics in the environment. Moreover, whole plastic manufactured items cause harm at amounts we see in nature. Animals eat plastic items such as bottle caps, straws and bags, and this can cause injury or death.

    We recently published a quantitative risk assessment in a top scientific journal measuring how much plastic is too much for seabirds, turtles and marine mammals. Plastic ingestion has been documented in every seabird family, every marine mammal family and every sea turtle species. Based on necropsy data, our model predicts the amount of plastic that is nearly certain to kill an animal. For seabirds, plastic waste in the volume of one to two marbles will almost certainly be lethal. For turtles, the number is about one to two baseballs, and for whales, it's about one to seven basketballs. In smaller animals, death can occur from a smaller load. Just one bottle cap can kill a seabird. There is risk to wildlife from the amounts we observe in nature, thus the current state of the science supports managing plastic under the CEPA.

    Since Canada started to address plastic pollution seriously, Canada has quickly risen as a global leader due to its comprehensive policies aimed at reducing plastic waste and pollution, which include the ban on a handful of single-use plastic items, microbeads and rinse-off personal care products. Since the ban on microbeads, the presence of microbeads has plummeted in Great Lakes water samples. Since the single-use plastic ban, the great Canadian shoreline cleanup reports a decline in every single one of these items.

     Reducing single-use plastics that are common in the environment, are not practically reusable or recyclable and that have a substitution is a key part of the transition to a circular economy. It also protects the environment. The scientific evidence supports staying the course, continuing to be a leader and enforcing the current policies already in place.

    Thank you. I'd be happy to answer questions.

     Thank you very much, Dr. Rochman.

    We will now turn to Mr. Thurlow for five minutes.

     Thank you very much, Madam Chair. It is my pleasure to be here today to speak on the issue of plastic and plastic waste.

    The Dow Chemical Company was founded by Herbert H. Dow, a Canadian-born industry pioneer, a native of Mr. Malette's riding, born in Belleville, Ontario.

     Today, Dow is one of the world's leading material science companies, serving customers in high-growth markets such as packaging, infrastructure, mobility and consumer applications. We operate manufacturing sites in 29 countries and employ over 30,000 people around the world. Dow Canada is headquartered in Calgary and has manufacturing facilities in Alberta and Ontario.

    As you may have heard, in 2021 Dow announced the expansion of our Fort Saskatchewan facility. That expansion will triple the production of our polyethylene and derivatives. In so doing, we will reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and we will be net zero from a scope 1 and scope 2 emissions perspective. That expansion is generously supported by the federal, provincial and municipal governments and is already creating thousands of construction jobs.

    Dow has been at the forefront of Canada's approach to plastic and plastic waste since the very beginning. As we have articulated before many other parliamentary committees, the approach the federal government has used to date has been to use the wrong act to solve the wrong problem, doing it the wrong way. Plastic is not toxic, and we verily believe that the use of the toxic substances provisions of CEPA is inappropriate. We have never wavered from that position.

    The best way to ensure plastic remains in the economy is to incentivize greater recycling rates for materials after use. We believe that government policy can create demand for products with recycled content and we remain committed to a recycled content standard for all plastic packaging. We strongly believe that creating a market for post-consumer plastic is the best way to ensure it is returned to the economy and not permanently orphaned in a landfill or escaped into the environment.

     No one is going to argue that fugitive plastic waste entering the environment isn't a problem, but to think of post-consumer use plastic as waste is a missed opportunity. Through chemical conversion, industry can depolymerize post-consumer plastics and return those molecules to the economy. Transitioning to a circular economy is not only vital to the preservation and protection of our planet's natural resources: It's also critical to the business successes of Dow.

    As we transform to a circular economy, we are taking into account a product's life cycle from creation to use to disposal in everything we do and create. We are taking a leading role in driving a more circular economy by designing for circularity and building new business models for circular materials.

     Dow believes that public policy will be a critical enabler of successfully establishing a circular economy. Smart policies as well as partnerships can help drive innovation and accelerate the adoption and expansion of advanced recycling to complement traditional recycling. Policy should be promoting advanced and chemical recycling alongside other recycling technologies. This is essential to resolving the issue of hard-to-recycle substances in products.

    No policy should deselect approaches that can best prevent plastic from being recovered and placed back into the economy. We believe that we need to invest in the waste management infrastructure to improve the supply chain and enable advanced recycling technology approaches. We believe this should begin with a more favourable tax status for industry investments in all stages of the materials ecosystem.

    We have recommended that private actions that support the expansion of the waste infrastructure be supported by favourable tax treatment like an accelerated capital cost allowance so that the work of the private sector can be encouraged to be incorporated into the work that provinces and municipalities do every day. Every dollar that industry spends throughout the materials ecosystem is a dollar that the government does not have to spend dealing with post-consumer plastic.

    In conclusion, the government should be looking at waste infrastructure the same way they are looking at our trade infrastructure and our transportation infrastructure. It's critical for the economy to succeed and grow.

     I would welcome the committee's questions.

     Thank you very much, Mr. Thurlow.

    We will now turn to Dr. Ross for five minutes.

     Good morning, Madam Chair. Thank you for inviting me today.

     I've been studying plastic and microplastic pollution for the past 20 years in Canada. During that time, I have worked as a federal scientist at Fisheries and Oceans Canada, at the Vancouver Aquarium, at Ocean Wise and now at Raincoast Conservation Foundation. I'm a toxicologist, which means I'm concerned about the impacts of chemicals and pollutants on the well-being of Canadians and Canadian wildlife. For four decades, I've studied a variety of pollutants in killer whales, beluga whales, harbour seals, salmon and shellfish, and in air, water and sediments. I've worked with first nations across Canada to look at the safety of indigenous foods. Most of what I've studied has been chemical in nature—PCBs, dioxins, PBDEs, pesticides, hydrocarbons and metals, including mercury among others.

    Plastics have emerged as kind of a unique pollutant in my world, as a structural pollutant of obviously widespread scientific, public and policy concern. It's a pollutant where every piece or particle is nearly unique in shape, size and formulation. Think, as Canadians might, of a snowflake, where we have an infinite number of structures. The complexity in this pollutant class renders the technical characterization of plastics and microplastics challenging, but it also offers incredible opportunities for scientific research, advances, information exchange and innovation.

     I'd like to summarize a few points that reflect my professional perspective on the topic of plastics and microplastics. First, as has been shared today, plastics and microplastics have been widely detected throughout Canada's three oceans as well as in freshwater and terrestrial environments. Plastics and microplastics kill fish and wildlife. They are toxic. They can cause entanglement of whales, turtles, seabirds and seals. They can suffocate. They can starve through artificial satiation. Plastics and microplastics are pervasive and persistent pollutants. They do not break down chemically during our lifetimes. They break up into smaller and smaller pieces such that every piece of large plastic is a reservoir of future microplastics. They can be found in the air we breathe—today, from this polyester carpet—the water we drink and the food we eat.

     The plastic pollution problem is only getting worse each and every day. Global plastic production is doubling every 10 to 15 years. Shoreline or ocean cleanups are useful for data and education but are an ineffective band-aid for the growing plastic pollution problem. Recycling systems, despite the best intentions of municipalities and provincial agencies, fail to collect the vast majority of plastic waste in Canada. Additives, colours and chemical formulations, including endocrine-disrupting compounds, prevent a safe and circular plastics economy. The majority of plastics in our blue bins end up in either landfills or dead-end products, such as park benches, carpets or curtains. This means that recycling entails, generally speaking, a maximum of two uses for virgin plastic. Do you remember the stubby and the 44 uses for the beer bottle that we used to have in Canada?

    The third major point this morning is that plastic pollution comes from all of us—we are all polluters—but the fishing and aquaculture sectors remain an important source of plastics in the ocean, representing probably half the floating plastics in the Pacific right now. Millions of fibres from clothes, much of this polyester, are shed with each laundry. This is something we've detected in seawater throughout the Arctic Ocean, even under the water at the North Pole. These are coming from textiles and laundry. Municipal waste-water treatment reduces but does not eliminate discharge into our waterways, with the microplastics retained in biosolids now being spread on our farmers' fields. They're not destroyed by waste-water treatment.

     Single-use packaging from restaurant customers, recreational users and travellers can be found on our streets and shorelines. This is something that every child can tell us about and that we all do our best to avoid. Plastic packaging accounts for approximately 47% of plastic waste in Canada. This is ending up largely in landfills. That's 1.4 million tonnes per year. More than 86% of plastic waste ends up in landfills.

     During my 25 years of working on plastic, these numbers have not changed substantially, barring a few low-hanging fruit items that my esteemed colleague Dr. Rochman spoke to.

     I believe, as Dr. Rochman presented, that Canada is well positioned for further global leadership.

    My time is almost up, so I will wrap up. My apologies, Madam Chair.

    Canada's SUPPR have directly led to less plastic litter. Canada adding plastic manufactured items to the domestic substances list allows Ottawa to identify further products.

    I think Canada can further strengthen its leadership by doing the following: enabling innovation and research in material sciences, textile design and waste-water treatment; facilitating a national knowledge exchange through working groups, conferences and consultations; strengthening research capacity through interlaboratory calibration and other exercises; encouraging home source controls through updated appliance standards and consumer education; strengthening the market value, as my esteemed colleague emphasized, and the food safety of recycled plastics through the labelling of plastic formulations for additives and dyes; continuing to build a national recycling framework, through the leadership of the CCME, to encourage municipalities and provinces to get on board in a national way that would improve marketability and the circular economy; and finally, considering the value of braided western science and the important contribution of indigenous knowledge.

    I thank you for your time.

     Thank you very much, Dr. Ross.

    We will now go to questions from the committee members, and we will begin with Mr. Leslie for six minutes.

     Thank you, Madam Chair.

    Mr. Thurlow, the government has still not explained the basic contradiction here. I'm wondering if you can.

     If a product is considered toxic enough for it to be banned for everyday use for Canadians, why is it acceptable to manufacture it in Canada and send it across the border?

    I'm afraid you're going to have to ask the minister that question because I can't answer it.

    As long as we don't screw it up before we start, we're heading into renegotiations on CUSMA.

     Has the United States ever raised Canada's plastics policy broadly or included this specific toxic designation or the export rules as a trade irritant?

     Every year the U.S. trade representative puts out a report about the global trade irritants around the world. In their most recent report, they very specifically pointed to Canada's plastic waste agenda as something that was a trade irritant.

    You may or may not know that the current CUSMA has a chapter that's dedicated to plastic management and plastic waste. It's certainly something the United States has mentioned. They've gone so far as to say, “proposed reductions in food packaging and packaging compostability requirements could compromise food safety, increase food loss and waste, and restrict U.S. agricultural exports.”

    Yes, they have identified this as a trade irritant.

     Thank you.

    Your opening remarks—and I think this was echoed by all the witnesses—noted that this is about what we do once the plastic is here.

    Instead of relying on a blanket toxic designation and bans, what, in your assessment, would be a more practical way to reduce plastic waste without punishing manufacturers in Canada?

    Industry has long argued in favour of a recycled content mandate. A recycled content mandate is the requirement that a certain percentage of the plastic come from nonvirgin resources. Doing so will create a market for that product. It will allow industry to make targeted investments based on the existence of the rule. They could go to their financers and say, “We now have a rule that says that we have to do this. Please give us the funding on favourable terms so that we can build the infrastructure that we need to do that.”

    That is precisely how the Canadian renewable fuels network was created under Prime Minister Harper's government. There was an amendment to CEPA that very specifically spoke to the composition of the fuels. Investments happened as a direct result of those fuels. It was a legislative amendment with a subsequent regulatory requirement that allowed the renewable fuels industry to grow. We would tell you that the same growth would happen in the recycling industry.

    We are looking at the stick approach here. That is, I think, part of the carrot. You also mentioned tax treatment.

     Could you identify specifically what carrots for industry the government should consider to help reduce plastic waste and improve the overall recycling system?

    Certainly.

    We have long argued for tax incentives to help facilitate investments in what we describe as the materials ecosystem. We're not fussy about it. We just want to make sure that credit is provided for things that are investments in the manufacturing process to encourage a design for circularity. We are interested in tax credits for both consumer and business education about how the product gets back into this circular economy, including collecting, cleaning, sorting and mechanical recycling, as well as the creation of the facilities for chemical recycling and any development of more sustainable feedstocks as well.

    All of these things are part and parcel of part of the solution that can help reduce the amount of resin that gets into the waste cycle.

     You mentioned the need for a recycling content plan of some sort for plastic packaging. What model that has been tried and tested internationally, or more specifically made in Canada, would work in Canada, in your assessment?

    It would be something that has the force of law at the federal level that would encourage investments based on the issue of concern. That would include collection, distribution, repurposing and all of those things in the same life cycle. It would be something that has a rule, that has the force of law and a corresponding financial incentive to make those investments.

    Obviously, the benefit of that is to keep plastics out of the environment, but what would possibly be the spinoff economic benefits? I assume a supply chain would need to be developed to better handle all of this excess waste being diverted correctly into a recycled system.

    Right now, we have multiple different supply chains. British Columbia does it the best. British Columbia has somewhat of a unified system where the rules are the same in all of the municipalities.

    Once you get away from individual municipalities deploying their relatively meagre resources at different problems, and you have a galvanized effect of everyone rowing in the same direction to create a similar type of infrastructure, you will absolutely see spinoff benefits from that.

    The better the system is at reclaiming and repurposing these materials, the less virgin materials have to come out of the ground. That has a different economic impact, but there's also a value that's added through each stage of that process.

    Just to clearly juxtapose, the ban doesn't seem to be working versus an opportunity for a domestic market of enhanced players within the game here. They could achieve environmental goals while enhancing the reuse of existing products. Is that correct?

     Can you sum it up better than that?

    I couldn't agree more. A comprehensive product ban has not been demonstrated to solve the problem. We would much rather have something that is a much more comprehensive approach and isn't, pardon the pun, whacking a mole one at a time.

    Thank you, Mr. Leslie.

     We will now turn to Mr. Greaves online for six minutes.

    Thank you, Madam Chair, and good morning, colleagues. Thank you to our witnesses for joining us today.

    My first question is for Dr. Ross.

    Thank you for joining us today, sir. Thank you for your contributions to the study of our ecosystems and water systems in southern British Columbia, in particular, a highly relevant experience that informs our discussion and our study today.

    I'd like to drill into this question of the economic impacts of plastics as we were just hearing. We're often presented with the argument about the negative environmental impacts of regulating plastics in various ways. However, from a differing perspective, and as a representative of a coastal community that has millions of visitors come every single year, we see the way in which plastic pollution on our coastline and in our waters is actually an economic threat to one of our core industries in the visitor economy.

    I would suggest that's true not just on Vancouver Island but everywhere that we have beautiful coastlines in this country, whether that's elsewhere on the B.C. coast, whether that's in Gros Morne National Park in Newfoundland, whether that's the Bow River in Alberta, or indeed on the shores of Lake Ontario.

    In that context, Dr. Ross, could you speak to the volume of plastic pollution that we have in our waterways? Would you have any comments you could offer about the economic harms that plastic pollution causes to our local and regional economies?

    That's a great question.

    Whenever we look at a pollutant, we look at the potential for harm to fish, wildlife and human health. In coastal British Columbia, where our indigenous communities are relying on aquatic foods, consuming, on average, 15 times as much seafood as the average Canadian, we remain concerned that the microplastics and plastics that are either killing fish and wildlife or getting eaten by fish and wildlife, which are then consumed by first nations, represent a significant setback to our attempts at reconciliation. Assuring food safety for indigenous communities is a pre-eminent interest of ours.

    To the point about the effectiveness of SUPPR in this context, I do note that the great Canadian shoreline cleanup has documented significant declines in the number of plastic bags and straws on Canadian shorelines to the tune of a 60% straw reduction and 25% fewer bags.

    These are large amounts of plastic, but, again, the single-use plastic regulations only target 3% of the total plastic waste entering Canadian waterways. We suffer from continued blights on our shorelines that are a problem for tourism in B.C. On the east coast, we have whales that are entangled in fishing gear, most of it being plastic.

    There are significant impediments to the health and well-being of wildlife and at-risk species, such as the southern resident killer whales which are endangered and number only 74. As well, there are concerns regarding food safety for all Canadians.

    Tourism, food safety, indigenous food security all have significant threats to their well-being and, obviously, have bearing on the economic well-being for those communities or the communities relying upon them.

     Thank you for that answer, Dr. Ross. You anticipated my next question.

    I'd like to drill down on the connection between land and the rivers, seas and oceans that surround us and marine life. As you're aware, for our community here in Victoria, our urban and rural watersheds are directly tied to the health of the Salish Sea and, as you mentioned, the southern resident orcas and the salmon populations that inhabit those waters. They are inseparable from our way of life and many aspects of culture and identity on the B.C. coast.

    In that context, could you please explain how plastic pollution from inland watersheds is compounding the challenges facing these species in critical marine habitats? Specifically, what targeted interventions at the watershed level would yield the greatest benefit for cleaner oceans and waters for all of us?

     Through the chair, thank you very much for that. Dr. Rochman would be able to complement any response I might offer.

    I will say that, in general terms, we feel as though 80% of ocean pollution comes from land-based activities. There's no question that plastics and microplastics are entering waterways throughout our terrestrial environments and paddling to the sea. They're heading down to the sea, where we suffer the consequences.

     In terms of the source of microplastics in particular, we're very concerned about waste-water treatment plants that discharge liquid effluent containing microplastics. In Vancouver, we have five major waste-water treatment plants. One of those, the largest, releases an estimated 30 billion particles of plastic every single year. That represents less than 5% of the microplastics that enter the plant. Much of that is from our clothing. We lose 10 million fibres every time we wash a single load of laundry, and that enters the waste-water stream.

    Ninety-five per cent of those fibres are retained as solid waste and redistributed under federal policy, CCME policy and provincial legislation as biosolids. They're spread onto farmlands, in mining reclamation and in silviculture. Those plastics are not degraded. We now have microplastics throughout our farms. They will ultimately drain slowly but steadily into our waterways, where they can affect spawning salmon and other wildlife downstream.

    Big sources on land are absolutely associated with our activities as humans.

     Thank you very much, Mr. Greaves.

    Mr. Bonin now has the floor for six minutes.

    Thank you, Madam Chair.

    Mr. Thurlow, how many employees do you have in Canada?

     We're at just over 1,200 Dow employees right now. Then there are several thousand people on site, building the new facility.

    Okay.

    How many employees in Canada work directly in plastic production?

     I would have to get back to the committee with an answer on that, but I assume it's the overwhelming majority of them.

     Yes, you may submit your response in writing. We would appreciate it.

    What percentage of the plastic you produce comes from fossil fuels, oil or gas?

     In Canada, right now, it is almost 100%—

    Okay.

    —because we're in the process of transitioning.

    What levels of greenhouse gas emissions are associated with producing this oil and gas?

     Well, today's emissions are very different from 2030's emissions, which will be zero.

    What are the current emissions associated with oil and gas production?

    Again, I don't have that number off the top of my head, but it is available in the national pollutant release inventory.

    Okay.

    You can provide your written response to the committee. Thank you.

    You're talking about chemical recycling, and you want funding for that, as I understand it.

    Can you provide us with information about the process you're referring to? Who are the buyers? What are the emissions, and what are the pollutants?

    Can you provide that to us, please?

     That could be a book. I'm happy to do my very best to give the committee useful information.

     We'd like to see some numbers on that. Thank you.

     Mr. Ross, you're talking about recycling.

    In Canada, is it still true that barely 9% of plastic is recycled?

    Yes, barely 9% of this type of pollution is recycled.

    Canada is part of the High Ambition Coalition to Eliminate Plastic, which will participate in the future global treaty on plastic. This coalition, of which Canada is a member, emphasizes the importance of reducing production.

    Do you agree that it's important to reduce pollution and that recycling alone won't be enough?

    First, recycling isn't working very well in Canada. I think we can all agree on that. Barely 9% of plastic is recycled, and that percentage has remained the same for 20 years. Things aren't changing. We've had some small successes here and there, but recycling isn't working very well. That's partly because virgin plastic is cheaper than recycled plastic. It's a challenge, it's a problem.

    Second, food packaging needs to be safe, and retailers prefer plastic that's safe. With recycled plastic, you don't know if it contains chemicals or toxins. That's a second challenge.

    So, what can we do? A cap—a limit on plastic production—is, in my view, the only way to prevent a continuous discharge of pollution into our coastal waters. However, I also fully agree with my colleague that it's very important to establish an improved recycling system in Canada. While this isn't the whole solution, it is important.

    Okay.

    You're talking about a cap, but, as I understand it, the high ambition coalition is seeking to reduce production. Otherwise, we're talking about roughly doubling production over the next 20 years.

    Do you agree that we need to reduce production at the source and also promote reuse, before even talking about recycling?

    I completely agree.

    I have two points to make about plastic. It's a useful material, but it poses a pollution problem. So, we need to support the value of plastic in our economy or increase the value of that plastic.

    That means that, for recycled products, we need labelling that tells us what they contain. We don't want to see tens of thousands of formulations that don't tell us whether it's safe to use them to make bottles, hot dog wrappers and so on.

    Would one of the first steps be to ban single-use plastics?

    That would be a fairly aggressive goal.

    That said, since 47% of plastic pollution comes from packaging, it is something to target. Furthermore, Canadian innovation is thriving today. Money is being invested in that area. While there are no representatives here to discuss the value of alternatives, they do exist. There are all kinds of options—alternative materials—that contribute to the Canadian economy and help protect the environment.

    Could you please provide the committee with information on those alternatives?

    I most certainly can. There are thousands of examples.

    Is Canada's decision to suspend the ban on plastic exports holding it back in the fight against plastic pollution?

    Could you please repeat the question?

    Is Canada's decision to suspend the ban on plastic exports holding it back in the fight against plastic pollution?

    Oceans are global. There are no borders when it comes to pollutants. It takes eight days for contaminants carried by clouds to travel from Asia to our coastal waters in Vancouver. It takes eight days when they're transported by air. That likely includes plastic fibres.

    When pollutants from Asia are carried by ocean currents, it takes a year for them to reach our coastal waters in Vancouver. Therefore, if we export problems, eventually they'll end up in our coastal waters.

    It has been estimated that most of the polyester microfibres found in the Arctic originated in the North Atlantic, Europe, North America and so on. They are contaminating our waters in the Arctic.

     We will now turn to Mr. Bexte for five minutes.

     Thank you, Chair.

    Thank you to the witnesses for being here today.

     I really appreciate your time, and I hope we can benefit from your wisdom. I have so many questions.

     Dr. Ross, could you please let the committee know what proportion of marine plastics comes from Canada, globally, or conversely, what comes from the rest of the world?

     That's a great question and an important question. We want to know our place in the world because we want our actions, our behaviours and our regulations to deal with sources in Canada. Canada is a small player in the global economy, and if we look at macroplastics, think beverage bottles, single-use—

    My time is limited, so please be succinct.

    Yes. Most of the macroplastic litter it's agreed is found in Southeast Asia where there is virtually no recycling system and no safe water to drink, so you want to drink bottled water that you can be assured is safe. In Canada, we have been tightening up our rules. We have blue bins that are very effective at preventing the loss into the environment—

    Thank you. I just wanted to get at the number that hits the water and where it comes from globally.

    Mr. Thurlow, what message do you think it sends to industry and people when products can be manufactured in Canada—and I know you kind of addressed this question, or didn't address it earlier—can be exported from Canada but not sold to Canadians.

    What I want to get at, ultimately, are the unintended consequences of some of our actions. We all agree that we don't want pollution, but I don't know that we're going about it the right way. You illustrate some important things about a circular economy, which I'll get into later, but what about the hypocrisy of the actions we've taken so far?

     I'm not sure I would use the word “hypocrisy”. I would refer the committee to the Canada Gazette, where the very document that was tabled by Minister Dabrusin illustrated whether or not there was going to be a cost-benefit analysis to the decision to have the rule in place, and I think that language speaks for itself.

     Okay, thank you.

    Eight days from Asia, one year by water from Asia, illustrates a lot that what we do here, impacting Canadians with unintended consequences, is not necessarily the first order course of action that will give the biggest benefit.

    Canadians are being told daily that they should pay more for groceries, that they should accept fewer choices. Food waste is going to become a problem. Affordability is a problem. We say quite clearly that plastics are useful. This is why we have plastics, but prohibiting their use won't reduce global plastic pollution significantly, from the Canadian perspective, in the near term.

    What other behaviours should be recommended to go to the circular economy that you were talking about, Mr. Thurlow?

    Again, the very first thing I would recommend is some kind of a recycled content mandate for plastic. Environment Canada has begun that type of consultation. They haven't designed an instrument for public dissemination yet.

     I would also remind the committee that when you're walking down the street, there are certain types of plastics that you don't see. You mentioned the stubby. Well, you don't see plastic liquor bottles. Why? There's a deposit return. You don't see certain types of cans because of deposit return.

    You have to look at what is working and emulate that model to as many of the other things that would be entering the natural environment as possible.

     I think we have to be careful as well—and I'd like your views on this—about subsequent unintended consequences because of the few options that are available. It's been mentioned quite often that a lot of the ocean-borne microplastics are from our clothes. We don't have enough natural fibre in the world to clothe the people in the world. What options do we have?

    It's a fair point. We also have a growing world population which needs food. Without the use of plastic packaging, I think you'd see a drastic increase in food waste. We already have very poor numbers on food waste. I think those numbers are going to go up incredibly without the advent of more use of plastic packaging. This is particularly acute in rural and remote areas where they don't have the same access to the infrastructure that you see in the big cities.

    I can't help but think about the experience of going for a milkshake now. I have to use four straws now, when I used to have one plastic straw. It just doesn't square the circle.

    I think my time is up.

    Thank you very much, Mr. Bexte.

    We'll now turn to Mr. Fanjoy for five minutes.

     Thank you.

    Thank you, witnesses.

    I'd like to start with you, Dr. Rochman.

    First of all, I've heard from a number of people about the great work that's happening at the University of Toronto on sustainability, and I'm sure you're part of that.

    In the decades of your studying plastic pollution, have you uncovered any evidence that the plastics industry is capable of solving this problem on their own?

     That's a great question. Have I uncovered evidence of the plastics industry solving it? We still have the problem, so I'm not sure it's been solved yet.

    One of the issues is that the supply chain is diverse. It's not just the people who make the pellets. They have to work with the people who mould it into a product. That product has to be made in such a way that it's practically recyclable, meaning that if something is marketed to be colourful and beautiful, it doesn't recycle very well. Then we need to have that waste management infrastructure. I fully agree that we need to increase this. Then it needs to be recycled.

    What we consider to be the most recoverable plastic is in PET water bottles. Right now, in Canada, we recycle 20% of PET. Why? It's not working, so we need a better full system. Single-use plastics bans seem to be, at least, reducing what we see in the environment, which is protecting wildlife. What we've banned so far isn't packaging. It's other items.

     We have a bit of a throwaway culture. We're going to have to deal with that. There is no “away” with plastic. It all goes somewhere. I have a community in my riding of Carleton that could possibly be the site of a future landfill. They're very concerned about that. Whether that garbage goes to our riding or someplace else in Canada, or migrates around the world, someone is paying a price for that. Also, someone is profiting from that.

    How do we balance the desire to have the benefits that plastics have delivered—I don't argue that there are some benefits—with mitigating the toxic mass they're creating in our environment?

    There are a lot of great uses for plastic material, from cars and airplanes to medical equipment, but about 40% to 50% of all the plastics we create are single-use plastics. Some, you may argue, are necessary, and some are less necessary. The policy that was put in place here is that, if it is less necessary, it's replaceable. It's often found in the environment. That's the one you can reduce.

    Human behaviour change is really hard, but it's a big part of the equation. When we interview people on the street and in restaurants about reusable foodware and ask them about their willingness to change, people are willing to change. They want those solutions in place.

    Yes, we can reduce...and protect the environment but still use the plastics that I think are really important. I think we need both.

    Thank you.

     Dr. Ross, in your research, what is the status of substitutes for single-use plastics that can meet our needs but be less harmful, or even beneficial, to the environment?

     That's a great question.

    My research has been focused on pollution, which is what I find in our waterways, our wildlife and our indigenous foods. That includes many harmful chemicals that Canada has since banned. Look at the leadership role Canada played in developing the Stockholm Convention to eliminate persistent organic pollutants. It was science-based. It was concerned about the Inuit. It took action. Now the world has rallied around that treaty. It's very effective in improving the health and safety of our indigenous foods and wildlife.

    In terms of innovation, in Vancouver, there are lots of products. You can go into a coffee shop and use their cup. You can use a paper cup. Sometimes they're lined with plastic. We have to be careful. There are a lot of bamboo plates. There are coconut products. There are all sorts of things going on. I put it to you that there is a lot of innovation and there is a Canadian economy around alternative materials.

    I encourage the committee to not just think about plastics as a material. Think also about alternatives to those plastics. There's money in this.

    Thank you, Mr. Fanjoy.

    Mr. Bonin, the floor is now yours for two and a half minutes.

    Thank you, Madam Chair.

    I will give my final minute of speaking time to my Green Party colleague.

    Mr. Thurlow, we were discussing greenhouse gas emissions.

    What is the total amount of greenhouse gas emissions generated over the entire life cycle—not just those generated during oil and gas production?

    I will undertake to look for that. It's going to depend on the geography as well.

    You can provide us with this information in writing. That would be most kind of you.

    Ms. Rochman, you have many recommendations on how to take further action to tackle plastic pollution, particularly through regulations.

    Could you tell the committee what other steps you believe would help strengthen Canada's strategy? I would ask Mr. Ross to do the same.

    Do you find it contradictory that the government talks about protecting nature, yet is backtracking on the fight against plastic pollution?

    Do you think this is consistent behaviour from the government?

     The translation is very quiet. I'm sorry.

    Did you say that the government really wants to protect nature and you're worried that we're going backwards on it? Is that the question?

    Yes, on plastic pollution

    On plastic pollution, yes, I think Canada was a really large leader in this space when we started taking it seriously around 2019, and you could say 2017, with the microbead ban. We were moving forward on so many things, including recycled content standards.

     We are at risk of going backwards, and I don't think that right now we have a reason to do it. We haven't solved the problem. The amount of plastic I see in Lake Ontario just in walking the shoreline is astounding.

    Thank you.

    Thank you, Madam Chair.

     Dr. Ross, obviously a lot of us got involved in trying to get rid of single-use plastics because we saw it choking the life out of wildlife, but I'm really quite concerned about microplastics entering the human body and the health effects of that.

     You mentioned landfills. Could you briefly touch on microplastics in human health and what you're finding in landfills? For instance, is there any sign of the forever chemicals, the PFAS?

     That's a great series of questions.

    We are concerned about microplastics in human health and particularly the nanoplastics that can freely pass the GI tract barrier and even the blood-brain barrier. We are concerned about very small particles of plastic.

     If I may, I will recall my comment about how all plastics today will “not break down chemically” in the future. They will “break“ down “into smaller and smaller pieces,” such that all plastics are a “reservoir” for potential human health risks. Think about a plastic bottle today. In 1,000 years, it might be a million pieces of plastic. We're very worried about that.

     I think my time is up, but I believe you had a second question.

    It was about PFAS.

    Yes, on PFAS, we are detecting per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances. These are forever chemicals. There are 15,000 of them. We only have the analytical methods to measure 44 of them.

     It's a very complex family. It's the old Teflon Scotchgard family of chemicals. The shorter-chain versions are found in airport aqueous firefighting foams and other products. Some are stain repellents and water repellents. They are forever chemicals.

    Like plastics, they are found in landfills. They're leaching out of landfills. They're contaminating groundwater supplies. I find them in drinking water supplies in British Columbia.

     We will now turn to Mr. Ross for five minutes.

     Thank you, Madam Chair.

     Thank you, witnesses, for your testimony.

     I am indigenous. I come from Kitamaat Village, B.C. I appreciate the comments saying that you'll look for indigenous knowledge, but to be clear, indigenous people use plastics just as much as non-indigenous people do. It's an affordability issue, and it's a safety issue when we're talking about food packaging. We've been struggling for answers to the same questions that you're posing today in terms of the marine environment, for example, for rivers and oceans. I do eat seafood four times a week still.

     In saying that and in talking about affordability and the safety of food packaging that plastics provide, this question is for Ms. Rochman. Should the federal government ban single-use plastics used in food packaging and in grocery stores?

     I don't have a good answer to that. I don't necessarily think we know enough to do that. I think the answer is that it depends. For certain food items where a box is just as good at keeping the product viable for a long time—

    How about meat?

    For meat, I think it would be very hard to get away from plastic, not unless we're going to a butcher regularly and we're getting it wrapped in paper and having it handed to us.

     I see.

    Has the federal government indicated any openness to a ban of single-use plastics in grocery stores?

     I haven't seen any.

     Actually, we had a project in grocery stores for a bit. We were more focused on the produce bags that you can choose to take or not take. I will note that there is a pollution prevention plan for grocery stores, but I think it's been unpopular. There has been a pollution prevention plan for grocery stores to try to get them to reduce their plastics where they can.

    Thank you.

     Mr. Ross, I was intrigued by your comments about the content and how it's ending up in our environment. To my understanding, what you said is that we're all polluters, including every one of us who wears a suit. Each one of us has synthetic fibres that are working their way into our environment every time we wash our clothes. I have never heard that before.

     Canada is at least trying. They're trying, and I'll give you an example of synthetic fibres in tires. B.C. is trying to regulate this, and they're doing a pretty good job, but 15% of every tire makes it into our environment. It's regulated so that we know exactly what's in a tire and we know exactly what's getting into the environment.

     Unfortunately, that does not speak to other countries that use loopholes to get commercial tires into our market in B.C. We don't know what's in those tires coming from China, for example. As an option, what B.C. is considering is higher fees for British Columbians, who obey the rules, to cover the costs of these single-use tires coming in from China.

     Is there anything that Canada can do to help persuade the provinces not to import and other countries not to export products that don't abide by our environmental regulations?

     Absolutely. I believe very strongly in the power of trade agreements. I believe in the power of CEPA and other pieces of relevant legislation and other treaties globally that prevent pollutants or harmful substances from getting into the Canadian economy. For example, we are not allowed to import PCBs into Canada or manufacture them or dispose of them.

     How does the government square this? Canadians want to do good by the environment. They are recycling their tires. They are bringing them to approved facilities, and yet there's a huge amount of single-use tires coming from China that can't be recycled. We don't know what's in those tires. Basically, somehow they're not even being recycled. They're ending up in our landfills. Canadians have to foot the bill for this.

    I think this is important right now. The federal government is talking about a new trade agreement with China, and yet they haven't resolved the environmental impact of these single-use tires ending up in our Canadian environment.

    I think that's a great example. In fact, a lot of tires are not only ending up in landfills; they're ending up being recycled and put onto our children's playing fields. They have harmful chemicals, a lot of them proprietary. I would go back to my point about labelling. There are something like 600 chemicals in tires for which there is no public information.

    In terms of a single-use product coming from China, that's a tire that can't be recycled. We don't know the content, and everybody's turning a blind eye to it. How do we address that as Canadians? How do we get the federal government and the provincial governments to actually take it seriously?

    We require labelling on that imported product, so the proprietary components of that tire are made known to the authorities in Environment Canada—

    Those products—

     Mr. Ross, your time is up. I'm sorry.

    We'll go to Mr. Grant for five minutes.

     Thank you, Chair.

    Thank you to the witnesses.

    I'll start with you, Mr. Thurlow.

     It's been clear that the plastics manufacturers are not in agreement with the government trying to ban their products. This is quite clear. Is there any aspect of the government's approach to plastic and plastic waste that you can support?

    Absolutely. The consultations about the recycled content mandate that Environment Canada has initiated have been very broad, with stakeholder-rich discussions. There are a lot of very serious questions about the phytosanitary issues associated with certain aspects of the recycled contents.

    Low-value products like benches was mentioned. Those are high-value products to parents who sit in parks and watch their kids play.

    If we are going to recycle things and we're going to collect those things, we need to deploy them back into the economy in a way that is useful. Some food packaging and some medical devices have very specific requirements, and there are challenges associated with meeting those phytosanitary requirements. In the meantime, let's make more benches. I have a chair in my backyard from the plastic waste from London. It's a very comfortable chair. Don't be so quick to dismiss some of those other uses. Recycled content mandates will work. They will create the economies of scale that will be required to make the improvements needed to our recycling system.

    I think all three of us agree that we are not doing a great job at this in Canada. Well, the more we can invest into that system to improve it, the better.

    The part of the act that was used to designate plastics as toxic is the basis for Canada's chemicals management plan. Are you able to explain to the committee the process by which a chemical substance is assessed and managed and the steps that the CMP undertakes to ensure that there is targeted risk management?

    Absolutely. With the exception of this particular regulation, Canada has the global gold standard when it comes to chemicals management. That is because we have a multiphased approach where we look at the volumes of the chemistries in question. We do a risk assessment on each individual chemistry and those uses. We identify uses where there might be some types of exposures of concern. We have very targeted rules on how we're going to do the risk management for those chemistries.

    It just feels like on this particular one, they're doing something different. Canada is the world leader in chemicals management. We talked earlier about the advent of the Stockholm Convention. This rule, which was originally designed by Prime Minister Chrétien's government and implemented by Prime Minister Harper's government, is the beacon around the world for the efficient use of resources and ensuring that chemistries are being used in products in a way that is safe for Canadians.

     Thank you.

    Dr. Ross, like my colleague Mr. Ross, I'm an indigenous person from the coast of B.C. I'm actually on the south coast of the mouth of the Fraser River and from the Musqueam first nation. I've spent many, many years on the water fishing with my family. My brother is still a commercial fisher. I've been on the water, and I've noticed the increase in plastics as they flow down the river and out into the Salish Sea. I know that some of them have come from many, many, many miles away because of the branding on these plastics and whatnot.

    Are you able to help the committee understand what body of evidence actually shows how single-use plastics move through a marine ecosystem once they enter it?

    That's a very big question, but thank you for your observation and for your concern.

    There are many different types of studies out there, and I would say Canada is a global leader in terms of studying plastics and microplastics. Dr. Rochman's lab is at the forefront of many interesting and relevant studies that help us to understand plastics in the environment.

    There are many different approaches to figuring out what we find where. The more we look, the more we realize plastics are everywhere. Microplastics are everywhere. With everything from satellite surveillance and surveillance aircraft in the north Pacific to icebreakers in the Canadian Arctic and smaller studies on ship or shore in coastal waters, scientists have been busy trying to figure out how to get their heads around this complex pollutant problem.

    Mr. Thurlow mentioned that it's different from the chemical problem, and it is, because of the snowflake issue. Every piece of plastic is different. I would go back to the fact that if we are going to deal with recycling, we need to increase the value of the recycled product. We need it to be food safe. We need it to be labelled. We don't want harmful chemicals in it, like flame-retardant chemicals or hardening agents that are estrogenic. We don't want those things in it. As soon as we increase the value of the recycled product or the product that will be recycled, people will pick them up and clean them up, and we'll have an aftermarket for that product.

     Thank you very much.

     Thank you very much.

    I'd like to thank our witnesses for joining us this morning. We really appreciate it.

    We will suspend to switch over to our next panel.

    Thank you.

    Good afternoon. We will get started with the second hour of our daylong study of single-use plastics prohibition regulations.

    Welcome, witnesses. Thank you so much for coming today.

    We have Greg Moffatt, the president and CEO of the Chemistry Industry Association of Canada.

    We also have Karen Wirsig, the senior program manager for plastics, from Environmental Defence Canada.

    Finally, we have Anthony Merante, senior plastics campaigner, from Oceana Canada.

    You each have five minutes to give opening remarks, and then we will go to questions from committee members.

    I will begin with Mr. Moffatt.

    The floor is yours for five minutes.

     Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee, for the opportunity to appear here today.

    CIAC represents Canada's chemistry and plastics manufacturers, companies that produce materials essential to health care, food preservation, transportation, clean technology, energy efficiency and advanced manufacturing. Chemistry and plastics combined represent $108 billion in shipments in Canada, close to 175,000 jobs, approximately $14 billion in wages and $65 billion in trade with the U.S. as our largest trading market.

    Let me begin with a simple statement: CIAC and our members support the goal of eliminating plastic waste. What we have consistently opposed is the federal government's approach to achieving that goal. For years, CIAC has argued that Canada's challenge is not plastics themselves but plastic waste, yet much of the federal approach has focused on reducing plastics through bans and restrictions rather than addressing the systems needed to keep plastics in the economy and out of the environment.

    Our concern was never the objective; it was the choice of policy tools. From the outset, we warned that a reduction-focused approach would create economic harm, discourage investment, increase costs for manufacturers and divert attention away from the infrastructure, innovation and recovery systems required to achieve meaningful environmental outcomes.

    Today, many of those concerns have proven true. For CIAC members, the single-use plastics prohibition regulations have resulted in the loss of product lines, significant transition costs and ongoing competitive disadvantages relative to producers in other jurisdictions. In some cases, the regulations have contributed to the permanent shutdown of manufacturing lines, resulting in a loss of well-paying jobs and broader impacts on local communities. Despite these costs and impacts, Canada still faces many of the same collection, recovery, recycling and end-of-life management challenges that existed when this began.

    Most importantly, the federal government itself has now acknowledged the limitations of this approach. In proposing to withdraw the manufacture for export ban on certain plastic products, the government's regulatory impact analysis statement acknowledged what CIAC had argued from the outset: The measure would impose economic costs without delivering meaningful environmental benefits, as production and demand would simply shift to other jurisdictions rather than cause a reduction in global plastic pollution. That conclusion should guide future policy. Measures that create economic harm without producing measurable environmental improvements are not good environmental policy. The objective must be environmental outcomes, not symbolic measures.

    The question before Canada today is not whether action is required. The question is whether we are prepared to adopt a framework that delivers results. CIAC believes the answer is yes, but it requires a new national framework for plastics built on collaboration, accountability and measurable outcomes. The federal government's role should be to establish national outcomes, remove barriers to investment, support infrastructure deployment and work with provinces to harmonize policy and reporting requirements.

     First, governments must align around shared objectives. The federal government should establish national outcomes focused on waste reduction, recovery, recycling, recycled content and circularity while provinces continue leading collection, recycling and waste management systems within their jurisdictions.

    Second, Canada needs a national circular plastics infrastructure strategy. If we want better outcomes, we need the infrastructure to achieve them. That means supporting investment in collection systems, sorting facilities, recycling technologies and domestic markets for recycled materials.

    Third, policy success must be measured by outcomes—not by the number of regulations enacted or products restricted but by recovery rates, recycled content, reductions in environmental leakage, infrastructure deployed and investment attracted.

    Finally, Canada needs a regulatory framework that supports both environmental performance and economic competitiveness. That means streamlined approvals, coordinated policy frameworks and policies that encourage innovation and investment rather than creating barriers to them. Canada's success depends on achieving both. The countries that will lead the future circular economy will not be those that simply regulate the most. They will be the countries that build infrastructure, attract investment, deploy technology and create the conditions necessary to keep valuable materials in productive use.

     Canada has every opportunity to be one of those countries. Plastics waste is the problem. Circularity is the solution. Success should be measured not by intentions but by outcomes.

    Thank you.

    I look forward to your questions.

     Thank you very much, Mr. Moffatt.

    We will now turn to Ms. Wirsig for five minutes.

     Thank you very much, Madam Chair and members of the committee, for inviting me to testify.

    I'm the senior program manager for plastics at Environmental Defence Canada. My name is Karen Wirsig, and I've spent the last six years advocating full-time for policies to eliminate plastic pollution in Canada.

    I'd like to underscore that plastic harms at every stage of its existence, from the water and air pollution related to the extraction, refining, cracking and polymerization of fossil fuels and the manufacturing of plastics to the microplastics and chemical additives shed by products in use and the waste from plastic that is discarded, often after a short life. The harms to animals and their habitats by this plastic in the wild is well documented.

    Some of the people most affected by plastic pollution live close to production and disposal sites and facilities, most often indigenous communities, low-income people and recent immigrants. It is the Inuit in the far north who face the highest concentrations of microplastics and toxic plastic-related chemicals in ocean water and food sources, despite the fact that no plastic is made there and very little is used.

    Everyone I encounter, no matter where they live, is concerned about all the plastic in their everyday lives and how impossible it is to avoid it. Public engagement and polling on this issue confirm that plastic pollution is a concern for the vast majority of the population, no matter what province they live in, how old they are or what party they voted for in the last election.

    It turns out that the ban on six single-use plastic items implemented in 2022 was a watershed moment, launching a national conversation about the over-consumption of plastic for often trivial and unnecessary things. After the ban, flimsy film checkout bags, given out like candy to the tune of about 15 billion in a single year in 2019, disappeared almost overnight. Like magic, stir sticks turned back into wood and there were even reusable metal spoons. Those four straws tossed into the bottom of a takeout order or onto the floor of the local bar without being used are mostly gone.

    The proof of the effectiveness of the bans is found in rivers and on shorelines across Canada. People who conduct litter and coastline cleanups attest that bans work.

    Ocean Wise reported on several years of annual cleanup data, revealing that the number of single-use plastic bags, utensils and straws participants found dropped dramatically after 2022, even as non-ban plastics, especially single-use cups and lids, have nearly doubled since 2017.

    Surfrider Foundation Canada launched cleanups in highly visited stretches along the west coast of Vancouver Island starting in 2016, at the time finding significant amounts of single-use plastics. The group helped usher in the first municipal bans on single-use plastic straws and polystyrene in Tofino and Ucluelet, as well as one of the first local bans on single-use plastic checkout bags. These municipal and federal bans have reduced the prevalence of single-use plastic waste on west coast beaches, but Surfrider has continued to advocate for expanded bans, celebrating a local ban on small-format water bottles in Tofino this year and aiming for a ban on single-use coffee cups and lids in the near future.

    Then there are the Great Lakes, where concentrations of microplastics are higher than in the ocean garbage patches. A significant source is the fragmentation and breakdown of larger plastic items during use or after disposal, including directly into the environment. Another source, of course, is pre-production pellets found on beaches throughout the Great Lakes.

    Microplastics researchers at the University of Waterloo have concluded that it is impossible to clean up the growing microplastic mess after it is set loose in the environment. We need to reduce the amount of plastic that is produced and consumed.

    Don't Mess with the Don, a local cleanup group devoted to Canada's most urban river, the Don, is also advocating for additional measures to curb single-use plastics. On a recent cleanup, the organizers told us that they've all but stopped seeing plastic bags since the 2022 federal ban. Like Surfrider, they've turned their attention to single-use plastic beverage containers, coffee cups and lids.

    This is not a uniquely Canadian problem. Our U.S. neighbours have actually been conducting Great Lakes coastal cleanups since 2003, and they've reported significant amounts of tobacco and food-related single-use plastics. This group in the U.S. is calling for policies to reduce or eliminate most problematic plastics, like single-use bags and foam, on their side of the border.

    The Federal Court of Appeal has endorsed the federal government's approach to ending plastic pollution, so let's get to work.

    We support expanding the federal bans of harmful single-use plastics, including tobacco-related products, takeout cups and lids and nuisance packaging; reinstating the prohibition on exports of the banned single-use plastics; and stepping up education on and enforcement of the existing bans to ensure that companies are complying.

    In addition, we're calling for measures to transition away from harmful, unnecessary single-use plastics in the economy. We do care about the economy, and we want a healthy and safe economy, so we therefore propose support for the development of accessible and affordable reuse and refill systems to replace single-use packaging; these systems are job creators.

     Also, end public subsidies for plastics, petrochemicals and oil and gas production, which depress the price of plastics and allow them to compete unfairly with more sustainable alternatives.

    Thank you.

    Now we will turn to Mr. Merante for five minutes.

    Good afternoon, Madam Chair.

    I wish to extend my greetings to the members of the committee. Thank you for inviting me to participate in this study.

    My name is Anthony Merante. I am the senior plastics campaigner at Oceana Canada.

     It is part of the world's largest international advocacy organization dedicated solely to ocean conservation.

    I'm here today to urge this committee to recommend that the federal government delay rather than repeal the prohibition on the manufacture, import and sale of targeted single-use plastics for the purpose of export. Specifically, Oceana Canada recommends extending the coming into force date from 2025 to 2029.

    Plastic pollution is a global crisis—and it does not respect national borders.

    Once plastic enters the environment, particularly the ocean, it moves. Plastic spreads across currents and coastlines far removed from the country of origin. Once in the ocean, plastic pollution wreaks havoc on marine wildlife. Single-use plastics have been found in the stomachs of whales, around the necks of seabirds and contaminating wild-caught fish. This means our domestic regulatory choices have direct consequences for other nations' environments, marine ecosystems and communities. It is not sufficient to end plastic pollution within Canada. We must eliminate our contribution to the global supply chain of harmful single-use plastics.

    I challenge the notion addressed today that bans don't work. As noted by my peers, bans have decreased single-use plastics in the environment. What limit these bans' effectiveness are the legal challenges brought forward by petrochemical companies not only in Canada but also in the United States. The question before the committee is whether Canada will build on that progress or walk it back.

    There are four reasons Oceana Canada believes a delay rather than a repeal is the right path.

    First, Canada made binding legal international commitments to greater plastic stewardship. As affirmed by the Federal Court of Appeal, amendments to CEPA embed both the precautionary principle and an ecosystem-based approach as duties of the federal government. Canada signed on to the Ocean Plastics Charter in 2018 and played a leadership role in the INC negotiations towards a global plastics treaty. While Canada made these commitments in good faith and has had good negotiations towards reducing plastics pollution both domestically and internationally, policy gaps exist. In December 2025 alone, Canada exported approximately 12.7 million kilograms of plastic waste, and 83% of that went to the U.S. with an unknown fate. Repealing this export prohibition would further add to Canada's contribution to the global plastic pollution crisis and directly contradict those commitments, thus undermining our credibility at the international negotiation table.

    Second, the primary rationale offered for this repeal—pressure from the U.S. administration regarding paper straws—is not a legal trade barrier. President Trump's February 2025 executive order applies only to federal procurement. It does not ban straws nationally, nor does it restrict the private sale of paper straws. It has yet to be finalized into regulation. Meanwhile, U.S. states representing more than 110 million consumers and over $11 trillion U.S. in economic activity, inclusive of California, New York and dozens of other states, have enacted their own single-use plastics regulations. Canada's competitive advantage lies in aligning with those markets, not retreating from them.

    Third, repealing this export creates a disadvantage for the many Canadian businesses that already made the transition in good faith. These businesses have invested in alternative products, materials and equipment. Businesses cannot make sound investments and divestment under a federal government that is walking back policies on single-use plastics. It was made clear in 2021 that products bound for landfill and the environment are not welcome in our supply chain. Thus, provinces and EPR schemes followed suit and used them as guides to move in the same direction, while municipalities also followed suit. A reversal would throw us off course and devalue the millions invested by businesses and subnational governments alike.

    Fourth, Canadians support the regulation of plastic products. In December 2025, 85% of Canadians said that they support the federal regulation to reduce unnecessary single-use plastics, and 83% believe it is the federal government that bears the greatest responsibility to do so.

     In closing, the prohibition of single-use plastic exports is the mechanism by which Canada ensures that its domestic environmental ambitions do not simply become another country's problem. A delay to 2029 preserves the policy coherence, honours Canada's international obligations, supports businesses navigating the supply chain and recognizes the ongoing pressures from the U.S.

     Thank you very much, Mr. Merante.

    We will now go to questions from committee members.

    We will begin with Mr. Ross for six minutes.

     Thank you, Madam Chair.

    Thank you, witnesses, for your testimony.

    Mr. Moffatt, you talked a bit about the economy. This committee has heard different testimony on a circular economy. Really, we have to expand on that, being a global economy, because we know the federal government has actually lifted part of its plastics ban so that Canadian businesses won't be impacted. They're allowed to export plastics to the United States, just to keep the economy and businesses going.

     In Prince Rupert, plastic pellets are exported to Asia, where they will make products with low environmental standards and low labour standards, and Canadians will buy back the finished product. That shows you how complicated this problem is. We're talking about further regulating this for recycled content, or content to begin with.

    Is it better for us to export plastic pellets to other countries that don't have the same standards as us, or is it better that we Canadians, with our high standards, do it ourselves?

     First and foremost, I would say that regardless of whether we're talking about plastic pellets, fibres, proteins or things that are a product of resource extraction, you're much better off adding value to those products here than you are moving them in their raw form and having that activity take place somewhere else.

    We've heard from some of our members that, yes, they've gone through the transition and they have made investments in new technologies, but they're competing against imports from other jurisdictions that don't have the same energy, labour, regulatory and tax costs that we have here. It's a valid question, for sure.

    We're talking about this global economy. On this side, we want results, especially in terms of the plastics that are making it into our environment. As an indigenous person, I've been battling this for 20 years in my local community.

    On the Stockholm Convention, which many countries have signed on to, including Canada, it seems that a lot of countries are not holding up their end of the bargain. In Southeast Asia, for example, the cumulative impact is 550 million tonnes of plastics making it into our environment—our marine environment, to boot—as opposed to Canada's average eight-million-tonne contribution to marine pollution. Canada is trying to do better, but it seems Canada and some other countries are alone in that respect, and we're actually allowing plastic products to be made elsewhere for Canadian use. We're not really enforcing the Stockholm convention on anybody.

     Is this fair to Canadians? Is it fair to Canadian businesses? Is there something Canada could be doing internationally to put more pressure on these other signatories to this convention to do better?

    The plastic waste issue in developing countries isn't due to their not having a recycling system. It's due to their not having waste collection like we have here in North America. This is a collection and recovery issue globally.

    When we're thinking about regulating here in Canada, we should be thinking about what the impacts are and not just from a science-based or data-driven life-cycle analysis approach. What is the impact of the alternatives compared to the products or chemistries that we are proposing to regulate? I think there is a middle ground where you're thinking about environmental impacts, but you're also thinking about the economic and competitiveness impacts.

     There's a sweet spot. There's a nexus, and that's where we should be focusing our attention.

    There's a lot of scrutiny being placed on imported products coming into Canada now, not just in terms of plastics, but in terms of origin, especially with the United States not wanting Canada to be a doorway into their market with products coming from different places that use substandard labour policies. Let's put it that way.

     In terms of products, like electric vehicles, coming from different countries, should it get down to the point that we're documenting and regulating the amount and kinds of plastics, and what amounts are in electric vehicles coming into Canada?

     It's an interesting question. Regardless of whether it's an electric vehicle or an internal combustion vehicle, plastics and chemistries now make up close to 40% of the value of the materials in a car. It's certainly not the weight, but what allows them to be lightweight. It's what allows the battery within the vehicle to operate.

    It's important certainly from a Canadian perspective—we have the chemicals management plan and we're assessing chemistries—that we think about where we're bringing goods in from and whether those products are going through the same assessment that happens in a very robust way here in Canada.

     The reason I ask is that single-use tires are coming in from China. We have no idea what their content is. We know there are plastics in those tires—it's 24%, at least—and 15% of those commercial tires are making it into our environment. There are regulations around that in B.C., at least, but everybody's turning a blind eye to it. Nobody's really addressing this. In fact, the extra cost to regulate and manage this is going to fall to Canadians who are actually obeying the law.

    If we don't get a handle on exports and imports, this problem is not going to get addressed.

    Thank you very much, Mr. Ross.

    We will now go to Mr. Malette for six minutes.

     Thank you, Madam Chair.

    Thank you to our witnesses for being here today.

    Mr. Moffatt, I note that, in my riding of the Bay of Quinte in Ontario, the Quinte region's recycling was actually the first in Ontario to introduce blue box recycling. It's a point of pride for us. We've since watched the recycling industry remake itself. Certain products are profitable for resale and reuse.

    The chemicals and plastics industry often emphasizes recycling and circular economy solutions. What evidence can you provide, Mr. Moffatt, that current recycling systems can meaningfully address plastic waste at the scale required?

     In the previous panel, there was mention of 9% for the rate of recycling in Canada. It's over 50% in British Columbia. There's a reason for that. They've had extended producer responsibility for 12 years now. The system works. Those that bring plastics into the province are financially incented to bring products into the market that are recyclable. They are incented to find markets for the recycled content. The rest of Canada needs to move down that journey.

     It's one of the reasons why, in my comments, I said this is about collaboration. This is a systems problem. It's a complex issue. It's governments. It's industry. It's the consumers and the industry that use products and dispose of them at the end of their useful life, after they've been used. This is a systems problem. Extended producer responsibility is an excellent example, and B.C. is a shining example of how it could work.

    Further to that point, as Ontario has moved to the circular economy, as it's been billed, of recycling at the residential level and the commercial level at a paid rate, we're finding that where there's the producer pays model, some areas are experiencing revisions. The greatest fear that we heard for years was that when it came time for the piper to pay, if you will, they could remake the model of what they will collect and what they won't collect. That's a concern in some areas.

    Can you address that?

     I'm from Calgary, Alberta. I have a green box, a blue box and a black box. That is very confusing for some. Sometimes I find it confusing. Can I put a used pizza box in the recycling box, or does it have to go in composting? By the way, it has to go in composting because it has cheese and oil on it.

    What we have now is better than what we had before. I believe there are 500 or 600 municipalities, both urban and rural, in Ontario. There are about 470 in Alberta. They were all different. They weren't talking to each other. The incentives were completely different. Municipalities were dealing with their waste at the lowest cost because that's what they were concerned about. Now, with extended producer responsibility, the system's talking to itself. The right incentives are there for those bringing plastics into the marketplace. It should get better.

    It's just like everything else. These EPR systems have to take a look at what they are achieving yearly on a two-, three- or five-year basis. That's continuous improvement, and we should focus on it, but it's way better now than it was.

     I have a question for Ms. Wirsig.

     Being a member of the parliamentary Great Lakes group and working closely with the Council of the Great Lakes Region, I see the successes we have had and, as you said, some of the efforts to clean up plastic in waterways, on beaches and that sort of thing.

     Environmental Defence has advocated for reductions in plastic production. What federal policies, Ms. Wirsig, would have the greatest impact on reducing plastic pollution at the source?

     We've been on the record supporting a move globally to reduce plastic production worldwide, because we think that is going to be the best way to reduce the consumption and waste of plastics. In Canada, we'd like to see the path continued. The path that was started under the CEPA should be continued. In addition to prohibition regulations, requirements and targets for reducing plastics, we should add a basket of measures to move people and companies away from the single-use plastics.

    We think adding the carrot with the stick will be the most helpful in reducing plastics, because people really want to do it. People are telling the businesses they shop at and get goods from that they want to do it. That's where the federal government can step up its game. The other thing is, obviously, to be a strong voice at the global plastics treaty table.

    To your point, that was really exemplified when we saw the reduction of the elimination of plastic, single-use bags at the checkout. It's second nature now for most people to bring their own bags, and they happily use their favourites.

    Thank you.

    Mr. Bonin, you have the floor for six minutes.

    Thank you, Madam Chair.

    Mr. Moffatt, I must confess that I was pleased with the Supreme Court's decision.

    Members of your industry—such as Dow Chemical Canada and Imperial Oil—tried to block regulations aimed at protecting public health. The results are noteworthy. I feel badly for you.

    Do you know how many jobs Canada would lose if the export ban were implemented? I'm talking about direct jobs.

     I can't speak for the entire industry. I can only speak for the member companies that are part—

    I'm just talking about the ban.

    The ban.... Genpak, which has operations in British Columbia—

    How many jobs would be lost, Mr. Moffatt?

    It's about 150 jobs, two companies—

    That's 150 jobs.

    —and about $75 million in lost value. It's two companies out of the 1,900, roughly, in the supply chain. I don't how it impacts.

    Ms. Wirsig, do you or Mr. Merante have any numbers on the jobs that won't be created if companies don't have alternatives to single-use plastics?

    We're told that a few jobs would be lost, which isn't insignificant, but I think there's a way to transition.

    Are there any positive aspects for other companies?

    I'll give you two examples. The World Cup is kicking off today. In two Canadian cities, so Toronto and Vancouver, packaging will be reused in spectator zones, and only multi-use containers and dishes will be used.

    The two companies that offer these services are in the process of hiring staff. They're creating local jobs and it's very important. It's a very important contribution. As we say, we can trade waste for jobs.

    Isn't the government's decision to take a step back helping the plastics industry, and particularly Alberta's oil and gas sector, at the expense of these alternative manufacturing solutions?

    We think it's a problem, because these industries aren't turning to healthier services and materials, which would create more jobs in Canada. That's why we absolutely encourage a transition to upstream solutions in packaging and container production, not only for environmental reasons, but also for economic reasons.

    Canada talks a lot about protecting nature, but it's moving backwards in the fight against plastic pollution.

    Do you think it's hypocritical for the government to take a step back while saying it considers nature to be important?

    I'll admit I don't like the decision. I believe the Court of Appeal confirmed the government was on the right track. As Mr. Merante said, we must absolutely reinstate the ban on exporting these products.

    Do you think it's hypocritical to talk about protecting nature while taking a step back on the plastic ban?

    I would say it's unfortunate.

    Mr. Merante, what has Canada done in the last three years to address plastic pollution?

     During the legal proceedings, they put forward the national plastics registry, which increases transparency over the whole life cycle of plastics. While during the legal case there has been no further regulation, we have seen things, which I mentioned before, like the pollution prevention plan for major grocers, which are the main source of plastic pollution, and a recycled content regulation put forward. However, there has been no regulatory action on single-use plastics since the ban was initially put forward and since the legal proceedings brought forward by the petrochemicals companies have started.

    There's been nothing significant on the regulatory front for three years.

    Do you think this is another serious step back for the environment, this idea of no longer banning the export of certain single-use plastic products?

    Their hands are legally tied from there, but we have seen small departments, like ECCC, invest heavily in reuse, trying to support reuse companies' viable alternatives to reduce plastic pollution and grow jobs in the local circular economy. However, we have also seen investments—not smart investments, I would say—in chemical and advanced recycling, where that money could have gone towards upstream solutions that stop plastic pollution at its source.

    Ms. Wirsig, you've been following the international negotiations on a plastics treaty. Canada is part of the high ambition coalition, which is not consistent with its actions.

    Do you share the coalition's vision, which is to tackle plastic production and reduce it, starting with single-use plastic products and those that pose a bigger health hazard?

    I absolutely agree with that.

    You don't think recycling is enough. You think we also need to reduce production.

    Is that correct?

    Recycling will never solve the problem. You'll never be able to recycle all the straws and single-use bags. It's impossible. That's not the solution. Clearly, it's not the right solution.

    Thank you very much, Mr. Bonin.

     We'll now turn to Mr. Bexte for five minutes.

    Thank you, Madam Chair.

    Thank you, witnesses, for joining us today. I appreciate it.

    Mr. Moffatt, Deloitte had a study which found that Environment Canada's proposed plastic regulations could increase food costs by 34%. Are you concerned that policy-makers are not really taking into account the unintended consequences of implementing this policy, like the second- and third-order effects?

    When we're thinking about policy mechanisms to address problems, we should be taking a science-based, data-driven approach. One of the reasons plastics are so ubiquitous in the food distribution system is that they're lighter. You can put more in a package. You can put more in a truck when you're moving these vegetables from farm to table. There's a reason that plastics are there, for sure.

    They're useful for society.

    They're useful and they generate benefits, absolutely.

     Could restrictions on plastic packaging result in more food waste, then? Would it be fair to say that that's a pretty reasonable assumption?

    That's absolutely fair to say.

     Are you aware of any studies that have been conducted that really look at the vectors? We've established that plastics are useful to society. They're valuable molecules. We've had some discussion that recycling processes may not be effective. Are you aware of any studies that have looked at what the actual vectors of plastics reaching the environment are—the unintended paths to the environment?

    I'm not aware of specific research per se. I would say that some of our members, along with companies within the sector internationally, are very active in supporting research, especially around the issue of microplastics.

     We can move on.

    I would assert that the problem is not that the plastics exist; it's how people choose to use them or how they behave badly. In high trust countries like Singapore, everybody follows the rules. They don't toss the straw out; they put it in the receptacle.

    I would like to move on to another point.

    In your remarks, you stated that the government's withdrawal from the export ban effectively acknowledged that these measures would pose economic costs without delivering meaningful environmental results.

     Could you expand on that?

    Especially in the export context, Canadian companies are going to be unable to produce for export, and that export is going to come from somewhere else. There's a valid argument—we've heard it anecdotally from our members—that imports from other jurisdictions have lower energy costs, lower environmental costs and labour standards. What are we trading off?

    Fundamentally, we're not opposed to addressing the plastic waste issue. It becomes pollution because we allow it. The focus needs to be on the systems that allow us to collect and recover this material after it is being used. In thinking that a ban is the most appropriate way to address this issue, you're not recognizing and acknowledging the systems that are necessary to achieve that goal.

    This is another example of how the government has missed the mark again and again on taking a course of action without expecting a certain set of results and other things happening. It is not anticipating or taking into account the consequences, like food waste and the increased cost of food and cost of living for Canadians, without addressing the root cause of the problem. It's not that the plastics exist; it's where they end up. We have to do the right work, ensuring we protect our environment and get the societal benefits of having plastics in place.

    Despite the bans, you noted that Canada faces many of the same collection recovery challenges. Is there any movement from the federal government on addressing recovery and recycling?

    Back in December 2021, the Minister of Environment's mandate letter said to work with Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada to implement a $100-million circular economy technology fund. The signals were there, but that's yet to be put in place.

    There's been no movement or no action on the part of the government so far. Is that correct?

    I would say there has been no movement, but as an industry, we have asked the federal government and the various provincial and territorial governments to consider a new framework for plastics. On the other side of that, we have asked them to support investment and innovation in technology.

    Thank you very much.

    Mr. St‑Pierre, you have the floor for five minutes.

    Thank you.

    If I may, I'll ask my questions in French. Please make sure interpretation is working.

    Mr. Merante, based on your most recent data, can you tell us how concerned Canadians are about plastic pollution?

    How do Canadians feel about the ban on single-use plastic products?

    Since 2020, polling has shown consistently that, across any region, age group, gender or past voting history, this is an overwhelmingly popular opinion. It has never dipped below 80%. People support prohibitions at the source, like a single-use plastic ban. They also support the federal government taking on that role. The Federal Court of Appeal affirmed that it is the federal government's responsibility. This is a widely popular issue.

    I think you also did a survey called Oceana Plastic Market Research.

    Could you give us the results of that survey and briefly explain them?

     We saw that 83% of Canadians supported the single-use plastic ban. That is 18 months after it came into effect. That is after Canadians saw plastic pollution being reduced in their neighbourhoods. It was very affirming that this was the correct choice. Canadians felt that way. We showed, through unbiased polling, that this was the feeling across Canada. The highest support came from Quebec, with the lowest support—and when I say lowest, I mean 75% still in favour—coming from Alberta.

    Thank you. We look forward to seeing that survey.

    Mr. Merante, in 2023, Oceana also released a report entitled, “Breaking the Plastic Cycle: A Policy Roadmap to Eliminate One-Third of Canada's Plastic Packaging Waste.”

    Can you table that report with the committee?

    Can you also summarize that report? Why is it important?

     It is available in English and French, so I can share it after this.

    The main findings showed that over half of Canada's plastic pollution came from single-use plastics. The major sources of that single-use plastic pollution came from Horeca, which is a common term for hospitality, restaurants and catering. Major retail and grocery outlets, beverage bottlers and e-commerce were huge sources there.

    I think the federal government was right to start moving on single-use plastics in those sectors, but the federal government, with the knowledge at the time, targeted products, as other countries and jurisdictions did. Now we have learned that through CEPA you can actually have more wide-ranging definitions of single-use plastics. The federal government could expand the ban to include all on-site food and beverage orders. It could require reuse at places like major sporting and entertainment venues. It can expand its definition.

     I look forward to the Supreme Court of Canada settling this and maybe having a federal government approach that's more comprehensive and less product-based.

    Ms. Wirsig, why is there so much opposition to banning single-use plastic products?

    Who do you think is behind this opposition?

    Opposition isn't widespread. It comes particularly from the Canadian and American plastic production industry.

    This opposition probably serves to strengthen this industry without considering alternatives. There’s an American company that produces glass in Montreal and Brampton, near Toronto. A lot more jobs could be created in those two regions if more glass products were being used. They can be reused 15 times or 66 times, so, many times.

    The plastics industry is trying to protect its profits, but we're trying to protect the environment. That's more or less the difference.

    I'll ask one more question, because I have 30 seconds left.

    Ms. Wirsig, can you name any Canadian organization that supports federal action to ban the sale of single-use plastics in this country?

    Can you answer in 15 seconds?

    I have a document on that, but it's only in English at the moment.

    Can you send it to the committee?

    Yes, I'll send it in. To date, 52 companies have signed a document in favour of maintaining the bans on single-use plastic products and increasing the number of products covered by these bans, among other things.

    Thank you.