Bill C-380

An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (plastic manufactured items)

This enactment amends the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 to delete plastic manufactured items from the list of toxic substances in Schedule 1 to that Act.

Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999

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

moved that Bill C-380, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (plastic manufactured items), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, soggy, limp, wet and utterly useless: we are not talking about the Liberals. We are talking about paper straws. The only people who like to suck on these paper straws are Liberal and NDP MPs. New research shows them to be harmful to our health because they are coated in truly toxic, forever chemicals. The Liberal replacements are four times as expensive.

Just in case the Liberals in the chamber have not knocked on any doors lately or talked to Canadians, which we know is true, Canadians are suffering in the worst inflationary crisis in my lifetime. Two million Canadians are using a food bank. One in four Canadians are skipping meals because of the cost of living crisis caused by the Liberal government.

The Liberal government is hell-bent on making everything more expensive. Banning plastic is bad for people's health. It is bad for their pocketbooks, and it is bad, actually, for the environment. Take a look around. People are listening to this speech, maybe in the chamber, maybe at home on their laptops or cellphones, which are all made of plastic. Many of the items we see in the rooms we are sitting in have plastic components. What the Liberals are trying to do is replace those components with more expensive materials. If people think they cannot afford their bills now, wait until the Liberals fully enact their plastic ban. Start with six items, then 16 and then 60. After that, the cost of living quadruples again.

The plastic straw ban is a fantasy. It is not based on reality. The reality is that the science backs up my position. Later today, I will be attempting to table the documents that I am referencing here to help people understand the science behind this ridiculous ban that does not make sense.

First up is that eco-friendly paper straws may be worse. According to this peer-reviewed article, it was reported in 2023 that many of the paper straws on the market have toxic forever chemicals like PFAS, which are associated with health problems like low birth weight, cancer, low response to vaccines and more. That is the first report that I will be tabling later on.

Another one is a regulatory impact analysis statement that members of the government should know about very well because it is from the Department of Health. The government's own regulation analysis shows an increase in costs, GHG emissions and also tonnes of waste as a result of this ban. This means there will be increased emissions and increased costs for consumers. Their own report shows that.

The third report that I will be tabling later today is a comparative study of a life-cycle assessment of bio-plastic straws and paper straws. This is a peer-reviewed article demonstrating that plastic straws have a lower environmental impact than paper straws.

Paper straws are terrible. No one likes them. They suck. Now the science shows that they are actually bad for people's health, bad for the environment and bad for our pocketbooks.

We have a waste management issue, not a plastics issue, so we do have issues. The poster child of this is garbage in the ocean. We should never use our waterways as a dump. We should never transport waste through our waterways, but that is exactly what is causing the garbage in the ocean. There are 10 rivers in the world that cause 95% of the garbage that is found in oceans. Eight of those rivers are in Asia and two in Africa. Banning more and more plastics in Canada will not stop this problem.

Banning plastic straws will hurt the most vulnerable: the disability community. This ban is cruel and heartless for people who rely on safe plastic straws. If people cared and listened to Canadians, they would hear from nurses and care aids about how people with physical and mental health challenges are suffering with this ban. I have a friend who just got shoulder surgery done. He is in a sling and having difficulties drinking and carrying on. It would be nice to have one of those plastic straws that bend to be able to take sips of water as casually as can be. We are hearing from many medical professionals about how this ban has impacted their ability to care for seniors and people with disabilities. It is cruel that the Liberal government is banning one of the tools they use to make sure that people are hydrated.

It is not just the straws the Liberals are banning that makes things more expensive. It is also grocery bags. Grocery stores are making a killing selling reusable plastic bags. They come with massive margins that are supposedly good for the environment. If we look in the trunk of our cars or at home, everyone has bags stuffed with other bags and stuffed with other bags on top, because every time we go to a store and forget to bring them or whatnot, we buy another reusable bag. It is the margins on these bags that are very impressive for the grocery stores.

My NDP colleagues always want to bring up Galen Weston, and I am sure they receive a huge card of thanks for supporting the Liberals. Maybe the Liberals themselves will get a big card thanking them for banning plastic bags because now they get to sell reusable bags over and over again, which is maximizing profits for grocery stores. Long suffering Canadians pay the price for this ill-thought-out and illogical argument.

Depending on the bag, if one buys one of the reusable ones, one might need to use it over a thousand times before it equals the environmental footprint of a plastic bag. This is unrealistic and ultimately worse for the consumer and the environment. On these reusable bags, we often see organic cotton bags, which are popular with the woke crowd. Those organic cotton bags are worse for the environment than the regular cotton bags, because they need to be used weekly for years to match the environmental footprint.

The problem with organic farming is the yield is not as much off the acre of land and the inputs are different and cost more, so the organic material the stores are selling has a larger footprint than just regular cotton.

It is not that long ago and we remember what it was like before we had the Prime Minister, and it will not be like this when he is gone. We used to be able to receive complimentary bags for our groceries, and we could reuse them for multiple purposes. For example, for a pet, a garbage can in the house or to store anything. There was no cost to us and we had these bags. We could save our money to pay for other items. However, the Liberals, in the charade of belief that this is for environmental reasons, banned this and are making us buy replacement bags, which are usually plastic and have an even larger environmental footprint than the original plastic bag.

There is technology that can help. Governments should be working with provinces and companies, and the Calgary Co-op is a great example. After it heard of the silly idea to ban plastic bags, it tasked its supplier to come up with a biodegradable bag, which it did. It found a bag that performed much like the old plastic bags and in 10 years' time in a landfill it composts to nothing. It is a great idea. It is great for the environment. It is great Canadian technology and it is something the government, after review, said no to. It said that if they were to be sold, they needed to be sold in bulk and at a distance away from the till, making it inconvenient for consumers and ultimately inconvenient for the country.

This is not about science. It is about government controlling our lives. If the government really cared about Canadians and the planet, it would cancel next week's radical international plastics banning meeting. There is a delegation of people flying from all corners of the world to Ottawa to discuss what plastic item they will ban next. They will be burning all that jet fuel and driving those emissions into the atmosphere, and while they are here I am sure they will be hosted with galas, food and fine wine.

I propose we take the millions that are going to be blown next week on nothing and a whole bunch of hot air and invest them in waste management in the countries that have those 10 rivers that are causing 95% of the garbage in our oceans.

That would be a concrete, common-sense Conservative solution. Spike the meetings, take the money and invest in waste management in countries that need it. If we do that, we actually have an impact on the environment versus the virtue signalling these guys are so good at. However, the idea is too practical for the Liberals, who are not about solutions but feelings, emotions and tag lines.

On the plastics in the ocean, which is a problem that we need to address, when we faced environmental problems in the past, we used technology, not government's heavy hand, to fix it.

I have done some research: What is that plastic? Where is it coming from? The majority of plastics are from commercial fishermen. They call it “ghost gear”. When fishermen are done with the gear, which is made out of plastic, be it nets or fishing lines, the practice that takes place is that they throw it overboard. These nets float with the ocean currents, collecting debris and making a bigger problem.

What I am proposing here as a common-sense solution is that we have a deposit placed on the commercial equipment that usually gets tossed overboard. Instead of tossing it overboard, the fishermen would take it back to the supplier, get their money back from the refund and the net will never get into the ocean. That is a common-sense solution that I plead with some of the MPs here who might be at this elitist, fancy gathering next week to propose. Steal the idea. It costs nothing for consumers. It costs nothing for the taxpayer, but it is a concrete solution to go after the majority of plastic that we find in the oceans.

Common-sense Conservatives will fix what this Liberal government has broken. Canada should be a superpower in recycling plastics. If this government would just meet with the first ministers, it would learn the solution is plastic recycling, not the heavy hand of government. Like many issues we face in Canada, the federal Liberal government ignores the provinces. To improve plastic recycling in our country, it starts with meeting with the premiers. It is real Canadians, such as from the premiers, that this government needs to listen to. It is not cheap slogans and bans that will make a difference in our environment.

Why the Prime Minister needs to meet with the ministers was proven in court. The federal Liberals broke the law. They went around the Constitution and meddled in provincial business. If the Prime Minister would just meet with the premiers, whom he brags about not having met with since 2016, he may find out about some of the great work they are doing on recycling.

With this recycling of plastic molecules, we can do it over and over again, which can become the building blocks for the next consumer good. It would drive down the cost of goods, which is a good thing in a cost of living crisis. Any consumer goods that we can lower the cost on is a good thing, and I encourage, once again, this government to pick up on that idea.

Canada should be that superpower in plastic recycling. If we had a competent government, we would be investing in technology, not bans, and this technology already exists. If there were a federal government willing to partner with provinces and private entities to increase and scale up that recycling, we could be that powerhouse and reuse that molecule over and over again.

However, the Prime Minister will not listen to the courts, will not listen to Canadians and will not listen to the experts that are in these studies. There is another study I will table after my speech about the Calgary Co-op shopping bag ban, which shows that it is scientific, it is biodegradable and it can work within our system.

However, for this government to admit its errors, backtrack and be transparent, I will not hold my breath. The Prime Minister will not listen to anybody, but soon enough, he will hear from voters.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts on the fact that part of demonstrating leadership is to take action. It is not just words. If we go around the world and say, “Look, we think you should be doing X, Y and Z,” would he not think that one of the ways that we demonstrate leadership is to actually take action, which he is suggesting we not take?

The member opposite is saying that we should not be having any form of ban on plastics and that it is okay to have plastic grocery bags and so forth. I would think that a majority of Canadians might disagree with that principle. Does he believe that the banning of plastic grocery bags is a bad thing?

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

Madam Speaker, it is bad for one's health, one's environment and one's pocketbook. There are studies that I will be tabling that the member has access to. It is the government's studies that show that greenhouse gases increase with such a ban. The costs increase with such a ban.

If they want to take a leadership role, they should follow the science. The science shows that plastic is not toxic. What this Liberal government is doing is virtue signalling at the worst level.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, with all due respect to my colleague, I have to say that he gave a rather odd speech to Parliament. He spoke for almost 10 minutes about paper straws. In any case, my understanding is that my colleague and the Conservative Party want to reverse the ban on plastics. I never thought I would hear such a thing in an institution like ours, in Parliament.

At the same time, he had a lot to say about the fact that there is so much plastic in our oceans. That strikes me as a paradox. Is my colleague simply trying to highlight the relevance of oil, since we know very well that plastics are primarily made from oil?

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

Madam Speaker, the member talked about plastic straws and paper straws. Paper straws are shown to be worse for one's health and worse for the environment.

With this ideology that is hell-bent on opposing anything associated with the petrochemical industry, one might find people opposed to bringing back the plastic straw, but I would propose that the member go knock on a hundred doors and ask Canadians what they think. They will tell us that no one likes the paper straw. It sucks.

Let us get back to the plastic straw. It is functional. It works. It is better for the environment.

As for the ocean, he must have missed the first part of my speech, when I talked about how the majority of plastics is ghost gear, which is fishing gear, not plastics. Changing the straw in Canada will not make a lick of difference in the oceans, because we actually have a waste management system.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, it was a very interesting speech, to say the least. I would love to sit down and talk with the member, as a person who represents coastal communities, about the amount of plastic we see in our oceans.

He compared a friend of his who had a short-term injury to a person living with a disability.

What I am trying to get clear about is this: My mother had a stroke close to seven years ago. She is physically disabled on one side of her body. She does not have the use of the right side of her body. She uses a straw to drink because of that limitation. She uses metal straws.

There are particular people who have disabilities, who may need to use a plastic straw. I am just wondering if he could be very specific about who they are, because it felt like he was saying that all people living with disabilities have the same need, and I do not think that is the case.

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

Madam Speaker, I would ask the member to go look at the plastics and, unfortunately, the garbage that is on her coasts and to do a little investigating on where it is coming from.

We know that 95% of the garbage comes from 10 rivers, eight of which are found in Asia and two of which are in Africa. There is not a plastic issue from Canadian consumers. It is from developing worlds that do not have a waste management program.

As for people with disabilities, they have made a loophole whereby if one goes into a store to ask for a plastic straw and asks really nicely and winks twice, they will look underneath their counter and there might be a box of plastic straws.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-380, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, regarding plastic manufactured items, introduced by the member for Saskatoon—University, whom we just heard from.

If passed, Bill C-380 would remove “plastic manufactured items” from the list of toxic substances in schedule 1 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, or CEPA, as it is more commonly known.

We unequivocally oppose this bill. It would eliminate the legislative basis underpinning the regulatory actions the government has taken and is taking under CEPA to prevent plastic pollution. The vast majority of Canadians are concerned about plastic pollution and they expect our government to act.

In 2021, a survey found that over 90% of Canadians expressed concern about the impact that plastic pollution has on oceans and wildlife. In late 2023, a survey from the Angus Reid Institute revealed that most Canadians felt that a single-use plastic ban is an effective means to reduce plastic waste.

We know that plastic pollution is everywhere in the environment, posing the threat of harm to wildlife and damaging their habitats. Scientific findings support this conclusion. The government's 2020 science assessment provides a summary of peer-reviewed studies related to the effects of plastic pollution on organisms and their habitats. It confirms that plastic pollution is everywhere in the environment, including shorelines, surface waters, sediment, soil, groundwater, indoor and outdoor air, drinking water and food.

Statistics Canada's physical flow account for plastic material estimates that of the 4.9 million tonnes of discarded plastics in Canada in 2020, only a little over 7% of that was recycled into pellets and flakes for use in the production of new products, while over 40,000 tonnes ended up in the environment as pollution. That is why the government is taking regulatory action, as part of Canada's comprehensive zero plastic waste agenda, to eliminate certain harmful and problematic plastic products before they enter the marketplace.

The Government of Canada's zero plastic waste agenda also includes a wide range of measures aimed at reducing plastic pollution, enhancing value retention processes including reuse and recycling systems, minimizing single-use plastics, and fostering a circular economy approach to plastic management. With a focus on collaboration between government, industry and stakeholders, we are making meaningful and substantive progress. Implementing measures to prevent plastic pollution from single-use plastics is a common-sense approach.

This preventative approach is reflected in the government's single-use plastics prohibition regulations. These regulations, published in June 2022, phase out certain single-use plastics that are commonly found in the environment as pollution, pose a threat to wildlife and their habitats, are difficult to recycle and have readily available alternatives.

Over the next decade, it is estimated that these regulations will eliminate over 1.3 million tonnes of hard-to-recycle plastic waste and more than 22,000 tonnes of plastic pollution, which is equivalent to over a million garbage bags full of litter. These regulations have spurred businesses across Canada to elevate their efforts and successfully transition to sustainable alternatives, including the adoption of reusable items.

Provinces and territories are also providing important leadership in improving the management of plastic waste and diverting plastic waste from landfills. Across Canada, many municipalities, including major cities such as Montreal, St. John's, Edmonton and Victoria, have either banned single-use plastic checkout bags outright or are charging a fee to discourage their use.

Bill C-380 arrives in the House for debate at an interesting moment. Next week, Canada will welcome the world to the fourth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on Plastic Pollution, or INC4. This is a pivotal moment for Canada and the world as countries meet to negotiate a new global agreement on plastics. Canada, from the start of the negotiations, has called for an ambitious and effective treaty that addresses the life cycle of plastics. We want to see negotiations conclude this year so that countries can move forward on implementation.

To ensure that we take an evidence-based approach and measure progress over time, we are advancing a federal plastics registry. The registry, the first of its kind in the world, would require plastics producers to report annually on the quantity and types of plastic they place on the Canadian market. This would facilitate the design, implementation and monitoring of measures aimed at addressing plastic pollution that are part of the zero plastic waste agenda, and it would help to identify areas where further action is required.

We also recognize the importance of innovation in addressing plastic waste and preventing plastic pollution. Through the innovative solutions Canada program, we are supporting Canadian businesses to spur innovation and the development of technologies that address issues such as reuse and difficult-to-recycle film and flexible plastic.

Most recently, the government has contributed over $25 million to support small and medium-sized businesses in Canada to find innovative solutions to specific plastics issues. The government will continue engaging provinces, territories, civil society, indigenous partners, industry and other concrete initiatives to keep plastics out of the economy and out of the environment. A plastics circular economy would help strengthen sustainable economies and create jobs; it would help fight climate change by avoiding the production of virgin plastic in favour of approaches like recycling and reuse, and it would protect biodiversity and the environment.

In conclusion, federal leadership, via concrete regulatory action, is essential to effectively prevent plastic pollution. It is in the interests of Canadians and the environment that the listing of plastic manufactured items on schedule 1 of CEPA is critical to the important work we are doing, and it should be kept intact. It is essential that we oppose this bill.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C‑380 raises some worrisome doubts about the Conservative Party's position on a policy objective that is in the common interest and that is accepted by all departments of the environment in every province and territory, including Quebec.

This bill once again embodies the official opposition's denial of environmental issues, but especially its denial of everything that years of scientific work and research have analyzed and confirmed, namely four things. First, plastic pollution is a major environmental and health problem. Second, it is the result of the widespread use of plastic, especially for manufacturing single-use products. Third, whether it is in the form of visible waste, microplastics or nanoplastics, this pollution harms our ecosystems as well as biodiversity. It can also have adverse effects on health, particularly when it goes up the food chain and ends up in our food. Fourth, plastic pollution is present along our shorelines and in our surface waters, sediment, soil, groundwater, indoor and outdoor air, drinking water and food.

The author of the bill, the member for Saskatoon—University, makes a bold statement by claiming, and I am paraphrasing, that the management of plastic manufactured products has no positive impact on environmental protection and public health. This is patently false. I would almost describe this statement as abhorrent. No specialized scientific organization recognized in this field of research shares this position, not one. We might reasonably wonder whether the Conservatives have ever read a scientific study on this. To be clear, I am talking about independent studies carried out somewhere other than the labs at Dow Chemical or Imperial Oil.

Before I address another angle, I would like to clarify something right away, because members of the official opposition might try to say that the Bloc Québécois is not defending provincial jurisdictions. What Bill C‑380 seeks to do is invoke the alleged unconstitutionality of the Single-use Plastics Prohibition Regulations made under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

We all know that the federal government is appealing the Federal Court's decision to overturn the government's order on plastics, which the court found to be unconstitutional. The Bloc Québécois agrees with the government's approach for one simple reason, that is, because the Federal Court's decision was wrong, period. If an environmental policy were unconstitutional, of course the Bloc Québécois would immediately demand that the Government of Canada review that policy and respect the environmental sovereignty of Quebec and the provinces.

As a reminder, the Supreme Court already ruled in favour of the provisions of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act that prohibit “specific acts for the purpose of preventing pollution or, to put it in other terms, causing the entry into the environment of certain toxic substances”.

However, the Conservatives do not see the difference between reviewing a policy and completely abandoning a legitimate policy objective. Bill C‑380 proposes to completely eliminate the main regulatory measure that allows the government to act on the issue of single-use plastics.

It comes as no surprise to the Bloc Québécois that the official opposition is once again acting as the political valet of the oil and petrochemical lobby. I am saying that because Dow Chemical, Imperial Oil and Nova Chemicals are the ones that led the legal challenge against the regulations.

I am sorry, but no good will come of rejecting science, denying the evidence and filling the legislative agenda with the concerns of companies that want the status quo or, even worse, full deregulation.

Let us look back on what the government has done. In 2019, it made an ambitious announcement about banning the use of some single-use plastics. In October 2020, it announced its intention to impose standards to make plastic manufacturers accountable when it comes to the collection and recycling of plastic waste. Then, the environment minister at the time, the current Minister of Energy and Natural Resources, announced, with great fanfare, the goal of achieving zero plastic waste by 2030. That was a good intention, an honourable desire, but it was just an announcement, nothing more.

The government had promised to bring this regulation into force as early as 2021. However, as has been the case with other issues where the government has lacked ambition and not taken action, they blamed the pandemic, that old scapegoat. That said, the government did not lack ambition or action during the pandemic when it came to prioritizing the interests of the fossil fuel sector. It subsidized oil companies in the name of fighting climate change, granted new multibillion-dollar loans for Trans Mountain and authorized exploratory offshore drilling without impact assessments and in marine refuges it had created itself, to name just a few.

Today, the restrictions in force are very incomplete. They cover only six of the hundreds of items in the economy. As far as exports are concerned, no ban on manufacturing or sales will be in force before December 20, 2025, in other words, after the government's current term of office. In our opinion, this is already a rather half-hearted regulation, and I sometimes doubt that it will be enforced. Liberal policies are certainly not up to the task of providing solutions to the growing and worrying problems of plastic pollution, but the Conservative stance on this global issue is damning in its denial of what is basically obvious—namely, that the use of plastics, and consequently its waste, has reached dizzying, even stratospheric heights.

According to every credible and independent source, items made of plastic were considered a toxic substance under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act precisely because the scientific literature proved it. As far as the temptation to talk about recycling is concerned, I would remind the House that the data from 2016 show that Canada recycles only 9% of plastic waste, that 86% ends up in landfills, that 4% is incinerated and that 1% end up in nature. There is no circular economy here.

Recognizing the problem may lead us part-way to the solution. However, let us be clear: the challenge before us is first to recognize that we must act predictably and firmly and then oppose any hint of deregulation with respect to the existing framework. Reusing, remanufacturing, repairing, prioritizing the use of renewable energy in the process of using the material: these priorities alone would guide us to healthy public policies on plastics.

Thanks to the expertise of Recyc‑Québec and its recycling facilities, Quebec is already engaged in a process aimed at moving away from the linear extractivist economic model that the Conservatives hold dear and that also seems to suit the government just fine. Recyc‑Québec has made the circular economy its priority. In Quebec, we value the principle of extended producer responsibility, under which the responsibility for managing end-of-life products lies with the companies that produce them.

I will close by quoting Michael Burt, vice-president and global director of climate and energy policy at Dow Canada, in an appearance before the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development on the issue of single-use plastics. I talked about Dow Canada's expertise in industrial chemistry and engineering, and I said that there was no doubt that Dow Canada could contribute to advancing the circular economy or developing something innovative. When I asked him if he intended to transition away from virgin resin production, he slowly leaned towards the microphone, maintained eye contact with me and, without hesitation, replied no. He also said, “The reality is that the world doesn't have a plastic problem, but it definitely has a plastic-waste problem. ...The reality is that, from an investment standpoint, Dow Canada is a profitable company.” I think his remarks were clear.

How can the production of plastics possibly be separated from their existence as waste? Mr. Burt's statement speaks volumes, does it not? One thing is certain. By introducing Bill C‑380, the official opposition wins the prize for being this major lobby group's legislative representative.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to stand up and speak to this bill. I have to admit it is a little disheartening to hear how the mover of this motion started his speech this evening. However, it is also not surprising from a party that continues to deny that there are environmental issues that need to be addressed in a timely manner in order to protect our futures and the future generations to come.

We heard the member speak about paper straws, make jokes about the sogginess of them and ask who really liked paper straws. I understand they are inconvenient, but my goodness, let us talk about the issue at hand here. The issue at hand is that we have plastic pollution that is destroying our marine ecosystems and is destroying the health and well-being of people across the country.

The real problem is around plastics that are polluting our planet and being ingested through marine ecosystems. It goes into the entire ecosystem and then into us, creating health implications. Instead of talking about the real issues at hand, the member was deflecting and talking about soggy straws.

I think this is exactly what is to be expected from my colleagues in the Conservative Party: a consistent deflection from the issues at hand. The member even went so far as to say that banning plastics is bad for health, bad for pocketbooks and bad for the environment. I am floored to hear this.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I just want to remind members to not be heckling or trying to make points while someone else has the floor. I am sure the member was not disturbed while he was speaking, and I am sure that he would want to return that respect during other people's speeches.

The hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, instead of what was shared in the prior member's speech, we know that regulating plastics is essential to addressing the harms of plastic, especially of single-use plastics, that are caused to our ecosystem, human health, the environment and even our climate. This is what we should be talking about.

We know that plastics are polluting our oceans at a fast rate. The impacts are horrific. As the critic for fisheries and oceans, and a West Coaster, previously an East Coaster, but now on Vancouver Island, I know that, in Canada, we are seeing the impacts of plastic pollution in so many ways.

One such example that comes to mind is from when I was first elected and we had the Zim Kingston freighter spill along the coast of Vancouver Island. I believe there were over 100 containers spilled, and only four of those containers were recovered. The rest were left to sink along the shores of Vancouver Island. In these containers were a variety of items, many of them plastic.

A year after the spill, there was a story by the CBC, entitled “From urinal mats to unicorns, cargo from major container spill is still washing up on B.C. shores”. I will ask members to imagine walking down the shoreline of our beautiful coastal Vancouver Island and there are these pink inflatable unicorns washing up on the shore. I do not know if everybody here has had an opportunity to visit our beautiful coastline, but most certainly, pink plastic unicorns are not a part of our natural marine ecosystem. It is quite the opposite. There is a tremendous negative impact to our environment when these plastic unicorns and urinal mats break down into microplastics and get into our marine life. The exact seafood we are eating is full of microplastics, and the cycle continues.

We need to be addressing this plastic pollution in all ways. One being that, if marine cargo spills continue to happen, there needs to be a strategy in place to make sure we are integrating local knowledge to put a response plan in place immediately. I hope we will see some of these things from the Liberal government in due time.

With that, I would like to speak about a new disease that has been found. There is an article by the National Audubon Society, a non-profit environmental organization dedicated to the conservation of birds and their habitats, entitled “Plastic Pollution Is So Pervasive That It’s Causing a New Disease in Seabirds”. This new disease is “marked by severe stomach damage from eating little bits of plastic”. The damage is tremendous to these birds that are ingesting these plastics. It is scraping their organs, causing “several knock-on health effects”. It makes the birds “feel less hungry.” There is also “less room for nutrients.” It is scarring their stomachs, creating less flexibility, “so birds are able to transport less fish back to the nest.” The article explains how the “damaged organ creates less digestive acid to process food and protect against parasites.”

With that, I would like to point out that the impacts of the plastic pollution disproportionately impact many indigenous communities across Canada. A constituent in my riding, from whom I have not received permission to talk about this, but I know he will be very excited for me to do so because he talks about it at all times, has been very focused on gathering and providing detailed information around the location of city dumps and how close in proximity they are, consistently, to first nations. We know these dumps are places where plastics are brought.

I would like to finish by saying that constituents in my riding are reaching out, asking for the Minister of Environment to deal with plastic pollution, and are calling on him to take action on plastics in Canada to address the adverse human health outcomes linked with chemicals of concern in the cradle-to-grave cycle of plastics. This includes a few points: a just and equitable treaty, and national policies that respect human rights; limit global production of plastics; eliminate unnecessary plastic products; prioritize the prohibition of hazardous chemicals of concern; prioritize immediate action to address people vulnerable to exposure; and ensure that business respects the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment.

Despite the Conservatives' attempt to ensure that our planet is burning, that our planet is polluted and that people are not provided with strong solutions to move forward, I would ask that we take the actions necessary to put an end to plastic pollution.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to address Bill C-380, a private member's bill from my friend and colleague, the member for Saskatoon—University, with the very important aim of repealing the government's irresponsible and senseless ban on single-use plastics.

This debate tonight is not about plastic waste, although certainly there is more to be done there. This is about whether plastic manufactured products are toxic, because that is what the government did. It had them labelled “toxic” and it was ruled to be unconstitutional.

In my speech today, I will first outline the history of the ban and its flawed premise, and then detail why it is ultimately unhelpful to the environment and talk about the harmful impacts on Canadians and Canadian industry. Finally, I will expand on the unintended and knock-on consequences of the ban, with a final appeal to the House for some common sense.

Canadians are now unfortunately well versed in the effects of climate change. The Liberals, with a need to be seen to be taking action, decided to place the blame for climate change exclusively on Canadian consumers, making plastics the scapegoat with a particular spotlight on single-use plastics.

In 2019, the Prime Minister announced bans on single-use plastics, and in May 2021, plastic manufactured items were added to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, or CEPA, to be designated as toxic. In June 2022, six categories of single-use plastics, or SUPs, were banned, with a timeline to prohibit manufacture and import for sale in Canada, prohibition on sale in Canada and prohibition on manufacturing, import and export sales.

Unfortunately, quite in line with a government bent on destroying Canada's competitiveness and foreign direct investment, checkout bags, cutlery, straws, food service utensils, stir sticks, ring carriers and plastic straws packaged with drink containers were outlawed in one fell swoop. Yes, because banning the straws from juice boxes in the lunches of Canada's first graders will definitely beat climate change. No, it will not.

First, this ban on single-use plastics is unfounded and a serious overreach. Plastic manufactured items, as I referred to, do not rightfully belong in the CEPA list as a toxic substance. CEPA is a federal criminal statute and the enabling mechanism that the federal government is applying wrongly to provide a legal basis for usurping provincial powers over waste management and the local plastics economy.

Using CEPA, while unjustified, allows the federal government to take control of provincial waste management systems and centralizes all decisions related to what plastic products can be manufactured, imported, exported and distributed in Canada. CEPA is a chemical management tool for toxic substances. It was never intended to be an environmental management tool. This broadens the scope of the act, which was to list chemically harmful substances like mercury and lead as toxic. Therefore, listing the entire category of plastic manufactured items in schedule 1 of the CEPA without a chemical risk assessment testing for toxicity is a serious violation of the act.

What is more is that it is not even plastic itself that is listed as toxic. It is plastic manufactured items, things like medical supplies and devices, protective equipment, food packaging, fridges and cars. All of these are made with plastic. Are they all toxic? No, they are not.

I worked for 21 years as a chemical engineer in plastics. I designed many plastic products used in medical devices, medical supplies and food packaging. I was involved in the approval process to understand how we assess to make sure they do not have a negative medical impact.

People here in the House every day are drinking orange juice from a plastic container. Is it toxic? No, it is not. They are eating their yogourt in the lobby from a plastic container. Is it toxic? No, it is not. They are going to the hospital, and in the hospital they use a single-use plastic for blood transfusions. Is it toxic? No, it is not. We are putting contact lenses in our eyes that are plastic. Is it toxic? No, it is not. We are giving babies formula in plastic bottles. Is it toxic? No, it is not.

It is such a ridiculous argument to say that plastic is not toxic, but plastic manufactured items are. That is like me saying that the wool I am knitting with is not toxic, but the sweater I produce is. It is absolutely ridiculous.

Even the minister himself said at the environment committee, “Plastics are not toxic in the normal sense of the word that people use pejoratively,” and that he does not think anybody says they are. Then why are they on the list? This is causing a huge issue in the industry, threatening jobs and the environment. As usual for the Liberals, their words and actions do not line up.

Perhaps they think that by banning plastics and causing serious deleterious effects to Canadians and Canadian industry, they can fool voters into thinking they did something, but like most Liberal strategies, it is built on false premises. The Liberals want Canadians to believe that banning single-use plastics will assist with the reduction of plastic pollution and emissions production. However, the scale of plastic pollution is small, less than 1% of all litter in Canada, according to a report written by the Liberal government in 2020.

Further, only 1% of Canada's plastic waste is disposed of improperly. Plastic pollution is not a pervasive problem in Canada. Moreover, alternatives to plastic actually produce more carbon emissions, not less. We know the government loves McKinsey and its consulting work, so I will quote from one of its reports, “The potential impact of reusable packaging”. Modelling done by McKinsey in 2023 indicates that there would be a 150% increase in emissions due to the higher share of fossil components in materials, transport and energy use to make the alternative products. What a good job fighting climate change.

These so-called alternatives cost twice as much to make as well. Packaging accounts for 10% to 20% of a product's cost, and if the packaging now costs twice as much, as likewise estimated in that same McKinsey report, there will be a significant inflationary increase to consumers if the government introduces requirements related to use, recycled content and eliminating plastic from produce and meats. That is just what we need when Canadians cannot afford to eat and are going to homeless shelters and food banks in increasing numbers.

As it is, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business estimates the added cost to the Canadian economy is $1.9 billion to produce these alternatives to the banned plastic packaging. We use plastic for a reason. It is vital to extend the shelf life of foods, especially fresh fruits and vegetables. These fresh fruits and vegetables, even pet food, will face a reduced shelf life and increased prices due to the federal regulations on plastic.

The Canadian Produce Marketing Association estimates it will cost between $2.5 billion and $5 billion in costs for food losses, accompanying an estimated half million tonne increase in food losses. Rotting food increases methane emissions. At a time when so many Canadians are struggling and the food banks are seeing unprecedented usage, it is unconscionable.

Worse still are the effects on the thousands of families who rely on those working in the plastic manufacturing industry. More than 99,000 people work in the Canadian plastics industry, which is estimated to be worth $35 billion. The ban will impact 13,000 to 20,000 direct jobs and as many as 26,000 to 40,000 indirect jobs. Together, that is up to 60,000 Canadians who will face further hardship at the hands of the Liberal-NDP government and its ideology.

In my riding of Sarnia—Lambton, there are multiple plastics facilities that produce single-use plastics. In 2019, the federal Liberals decided they wanted Nova Chemicals to build a $3-billion plant in my riding instead of in Texas. They provided incentives and money to get it to build a single-use plastic production facility that would export plastics to the world. The very next month, they decided they were going to ban the products it is producing, and now they are planning to stop the export. They would shut that facility down, along with all the economic benefits. It is total hypocrisy on the part of the government.

Are we really going to destroy the lives and livelihoods of 60,000 Canadians and their families while putting increased costs and inconveniences on Canadians for a detrimental environmental and economic outcome? There is no benefit to this, and it was an egregious error to enact the ban in the first place.

Instead, efforts can be made to shore up recycling and recovery infrastructure to better manage plastic waste sources. These industries are willing to partner to address some of the issues that we know exist with plastics, like microbeads in the Great Lakes, for example. Let us work on those problems.

Plastics are not toxic, and plastic-manufactured products are not toxic, so I implore the government to listen to reason and common sense.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, a lot of people are a bit surprised, but maybe not so surprised, that the Conservative Party is going against policy here in Canada, but there are many countries around the world that are moving toward the banning, for example, of plastic bags. That is the question I had posed to the member opposite. The Conservative Party wants to take some backward steps in regard to the environment and to go around the world saying that they care about the environment, when other countries around the world are in fact taking actions. Many countries have banned it, and many of them are actually in the process.

I will continue on, the next time—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I do apologize. That is twice in one day for the hon. parliamentary secretary. I am so sorry.

The House resumed from April 18 consideration of the motion that Bill C-380, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (plastic manufactured items), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, here we are again with private members' hour, which there are very few of nowadays because of what is taking place. I will get to that, but I want to emphasize that this particular private member's bill takes a step backward when it comes to the environment.

All political parties, with the exception of the Conservative Party, recognize that our environment matters. Canadians are concerned about our environment, contrary to what the Conservatives might believe. However, interestingly, this is not the first time we have a private member's bill that would not do very much for the environment.

When we look at the Conservative Party's approach to the environment, the highlight, as the member opposite just made reference to, is, as he said, to axe the tax. However, the theme behind axing the tax is to attack the price on pollution, and it is a common thing the Conservatives say inside the chamber. There is a reason they do that. Members may recall that, last week, it made national news that Conservative MPs were complaining and providing comment in regard to their “freedom leader no more”, as we found out that the leader of the Conservative Party not only watches very closely what his MPs are saying and doing, but also rewards good behaviour and punishes bad behaviour.

I say that because the member opposite just spoke about axing the tax, which is one of their slogans. What do the Conservatives have to say about slogans? I will quote directly from a news article that made headlines yesterday. Here is what Conservative MPs had to say: “If the leader invents a new slogan, ‘we know we'll have to use it’”. Reading further down in the story, it says, again coming from Conservatives, “‘If you repeat the slogans, you get rewarded,’ said a Conservative source. ‘You are celebrated in front of the entire caucus for being a good cheerleader.’”

If one is in the Conservative caucus, one gets celebrated for repeating the leader of the Conservative Party's slogans. That is why we often hear them saying “axe the tax” and the other slogans, the bumper stickers.

[An hon. member]

It's embarrassing.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is embarrassing; my colleague is right.

Now we have this private member's bill. Anyone who follows Parliament would understand that we do not get to debate private members' bills that often. That is because the leader of the Conservative Party is in essence holding the House of Commons hostage. It is unfortunate, even though I do not think that this particular private member's bill is that great. I believe the member might be trying to get a gold star from his leader, because what he is hoping for is that we allow and encourage plastic use in Canada.

I remember the days when I was a member of the Manitoba legislature. The thought at the time was that we encourage people to use fewer plastic bags. We tried to amplify that by talking about how long it takes a plastic bag to disintegrate. Members would be amazed by how long it takes. We are talking many years. The thought was that we should bring in private member's legislation to deal with it, to ban the use of plastic bags, as there are alternatives. I believe I even had support from some Progressive Conservatives.

There is a huge difference there: Members should not be confused by the current Conservative Reform Party we see opposite. There are Progressive Conservatives in the Conservative caucus today, just not very many of them. It is the progressive-minded ones who are designated to go to the back or leave caucus. However, there are still ideas there that are tangible and will make a difference.

We could google plastic bags and the nuisance and damage they cause to the environment. One of the pictures that come to mind right away is plastic bags in trees that stay there endlessly. When the wind picks up, they get carried into the trees and stay there for a long time. These are the types of things that I believe a vast majority of Canadians are very much sympathetic to. What can we do as a population to improve our economy and our environment?

When we watch some of the nature shows, especially anything dealing with water, we see how plastics are harming our environment in many different ways. I made reference to plastic bags in trees. Do members remember the old plastic rings that would hold a case of pop together? We see fish that have been strangled by this plastic item. If we look at storms that come in from the coast, especially in some countries, we see literally hundreds of yards of plastic being washed ashore. If we look at the type of plastic we see when the water recedes, it is a very serious issue, as is the amount of plastic waste we see when we drive out to rural communities.

We see different levels of government as well as citizens trying to contribute to cleaning it all up through recycling programs. There are initiatives we can all take, including looking at ways we can ban certain single-use plastics. There is so much potential in what we can introduce, and I suspect a vast majority of Canadians would support it. However, I do not know to what degree we would get wide support for legislation that takes away from the value of protecting our environment from plastics. It seems to me that this is what this legislation is advocating for, which is consistent with what we see from the Conservative Party, as I said when I started to talk about the price on pollution.

There was a time when individuals like Erin O'Toole and other Progressive Conservatives saw the value in things like a price on pollution and looking at ways to deal with single-use plastics. That is no more under this particular Conservative Reform Party leader. Instead, we see the far right taking control of the leader of the Conservative Party's office, at a substantial cost to good public policy.

We have seen examples of that even today as we talk about the Liberals and the New Democrats wanting to give a GST tax holiday to Canadians on many products. We have the New Democrats and the Liberals saying yes to it, but the Conservatives, who said yes during the last election, are saying no today. It is because of the far-right attitude within the Conservative Party. It is more concerned with Conservative self-interest than about—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member is short on time.

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

I request a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, December 4, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I request unanimous consent to provide my speech on the bill.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I also rise on a point of order. I request unanimous consent from the House to let me do my speech. I just had a bit of a trip in the hallway, and I was late coming in by a matter of seconds.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, my understanding is that we will give unanimous consent for both members to speak.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, the NDP has a long history of fighting against pollution and climate change. The NDP has been calling for plastic regulations and a ban on single-use plastic for years. We continue to lead the way when it comes to addressing plastic pollution. For example, my colleague has put forward a motion. Is it Campbell River?

[An hon. member]

North Island—Powell River.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Yes, Madam Speaker, my colleague from North Island—Powell River has put forward motion M-80, calling on the government to ban styrofoam in aquatic infrastructure. It was the MP from—

[An hon. member]

Courtenay—Alberni.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, in 2018, it was my colleague from Courtenay—Alberni who proposed a national strategy against plastic pollution.

I want to thank my colleagues for helping me out on this today. I just had a little trip in the hallway, and it has me a bit flustered.

My colleague proposed a national strategy against plastic pollution that was agreed to by all parties but has yet to be implemented by the Liberal government. Thanks to a motion by former MP Megan Leslie, in 2015, plastic microbeads are now banned in consumer products. In addition, Canada has made legally binding international commitments to reducing plastic pollution and to being plastic-free by 2030. This can only be done by advancing policies on plastic, not by tearing them down, which this bill does, but this is the culture of the regressive Conservatives.

Canada has a responsibility as a rich and developed country to reduce our waste and to be a climate leader on the international stage. We cannot let the regressive Conservatives, kowtowing to the petrochemical industry, set the tone for our international commitments to people. An NDP government would end all public financing and subsidies of petrochemical companies, meaning big oil and gas, that profit from producing more plastics. Corporations that are fuelling the climate crisis and our pollution problem should not be getting rich off their pollution, and they should definitely not be getting government handouts to help them do it.

Ending government handouts to fossil fuel companies is something the residents of Port Moody—Coquitlam want. They want their government to take real steps toward putting an end to pollution. They are also concerned about the proliferation of plastics in their lives and in the ocean.

The last NDP MP for my riding of Port Moody—Coquitlam was Fin Donnelly. He stood in the House over six years ago to share that it was Canadians who first proposed World Ocean Day at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992. However, over 30 years later, the issues are more overwhelming than ever before. Climate change, plastic pollution, open-net salmon farming, illegal fishing and habitat destruction all need immediate attention. This cannot continue, and that is why New Democrats are moving forward to end plastic pollution. We are not going backwards as the Conservatives continue to do.

Canadians want their governments to take action, and they are also taking action by organizing beach cleanups, banning plastic bags and saying no to more plastic. It is time the Conservatives also get a climate plan and address this pressing issue, although solutions to pollution and climate change require a belief in science, which the Conservatives do not know much about.

It was the Harper government that attacked science and scientists. An investigation by the Information Commissioner of Canada showed that the Harper government muzzled scientists. The investigation came about after a complaint by the University of Victoria's Environmental Law Centre clinic and the advocacy group Democracy Watch. The group submitted a report detailing a series of examples of Harper government officials blocking media access to scientists. In one case, the government scientist was ordered to get permission from the minister of natural resources before he could talk to reporters about a flood that happened 13,000 years ago, even though this research had been published in the journal Nature. Another example is that it took 11 government employees and 50 emails to decide how to answer a reporter's request to interview a Canadian government scientist who was part of a NASA team studying regional snowfall patterns.

It was shown that most of the muzzling involved scientists researching climate change. We cannot go back to the Conservative era. We know Conservatives do not have a climate plan; they do not believe in reducing fossil fuel emissions to slow down catastrophic climate change. In fact, the Conservatives are trying to reduce the very important climate change discussions down to a dislike of paper straws and coffee cup lids. They are deeply unserious, and they are not up to the challenges of the 21st century. In fact, if they could get their way, they would roll us all back to the years of bench seats in cars with no seat belts and no concerns for the emissions they produce.

That is not the only thing they would roll back. They would roll back women's rights, the pension eligibility age for seniors, climate protection policies, affordable child care, dental care, pharmacare and indigenous sovereignty. We just need to look at what the B.C. Conservatives have already said: Provincially, they would undo commitments to UNDRIP. These are the realities that Canadians would experience with a regressive Conservative government.

I want to go back to the oceans. Oceana published a report in 2020 called “Drowning in Plastic”. It shares that Canada introduces millions of tonnes of plastic, and 87% of it ends up in landfills or in the environment. Much of the plastic we discard ends up in the ocean, threatening whales, birds, turtles and all marine life. Canada has a national and global responsibility to stop the damage and do more, not less, to stop this pollution.

Unfortunately, doing less is what the Conservatives always do. In the three years the current Parliament has been sitting, they have done nothing for Canadians; the NDP continues to bring about wins for Canadians, such as in housing, child care, anti-scab legislation, dental care and pharmacare.

With that, in closing, I ask for unanimous consent to table, in both official languages, the report I quoted earlier: “Drowning in Plastic” from Oceana Canada, dated September 2020.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to table the report?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Madam Speaker, the famous movie The Graduate had the well-meaning father-in-law whisper to the young Ben, played by Dustin Hoffman, one word: “plastics”. He said, “There's a great future in plastics.” In fact his advice was on the mark. The 20th century was dominated by plastics, which are light, versatile, inexpensive and inert. There was not a single country on earth that did not use plastics. There was not a human endeavour that did not benefit from this miracle material.

We have reached the point where we carry plastics with us daily. Think how many credit cards we have in our wallet. How about bank notes? How about our phones, our computers, or even our eyeglasses? If someone has had bypass surgery lately, what were the stents made out of? How did we get here? We got here in a car made with a massive amount of plastic. By using plastics in that car, we save more energy and create less pollution than it took to make the plastic in the car in the first place.

Without a doubt, plastics are the miracle material of the 20th century. Will they continue to be the miracle of the 21st century? They will not if the hysterical and ill-informed climate radicals sitting on the NDP and Liberal benches have their way. Their war against plastics is to our detriment. It makes Canada less efficient and less competitive, and as the federal court ruled, banning plastics as toxic was unconstitutional. This is why I am so grateful for the chance today to speak in support of my colleague's initiative.

Bill C-380 would be an excellent first step in defending a substance with many applications, one that makes modern life possible. Have members ever wondered why we do not find plastic banknotes littering the streets? What insight does that provide into human behaviour? The absence of plastic banknotes littering the streets is indicative of human behaviour and the intrinsic value assigned to certain forms of plastic. When plastic is perceived as valuable, individuals are more likely to dispose of it responsibly, contributing to reduced littering.

If we assign a value to plastic instead of viewing it as toxic, the waste problem becomes solvable by market forces. Scrap metal is not a problem, because it has value. People make a part-time job of picking apart appliances at the curbside and make extra money by selling the metal to salvage yards that recycle it. Therefore if there were a market value for old plastics, likely the same would occur with them.

Canada has the best engineers in the world, and the ones I have spoken to are working on and excited for recycling solutions. Recycling means plastics can be used over and over again without creating more waste, while protecting the health of our people and the safety of our environment. That is a common-sense solution. By establishing a market value for plastics, we incentivize recycling and responsible waste management practices, ultimately mitigating a waste problem.

Plastics related to food are not just the straws, the forks and the coffee cup lids the NDP-Liberals demonize. Plastics also play a crucial role in food production and preservation. Plastics like films are essential for extending the shelf life of perishable foods, reducing food waste and ensuring food safety during transportation and storage. They enable us to distribute fresh produce globally, maintaining quality and accessibility for consumers.

Canada imports over 80% of its fruits and vegetables. The distances travelled to transport this food are enormous. Plastics are indispensable in the agricultural sector, facilitating the transportation and preservation of fresh produce over long distances. Without plastics, we would see significant increases in food prices due to decreased shelf life and increased food waste. Additionally, compromised food safety could pose health risks to consumers.

Unfortunately, positive narratives about plastic recycling often go unnoticed amid sensationalized stories about plastic pollution. It is essential to amplify success stories and recognize the progress made in sustainable plastic management to inspire further action and innovation. For example, there is a small family-owned company in Woodbridge that I toured, Petro Plastics.

The company's stewardship initiatives help lead repurposing of plastic film and plastics, recycling roughly 100,000 pounds per month. It works with plastic recyclers in Ontario, and the recycled material is now being used in construction projects like building homes, something else the NDP-Liberal government is failing Canadians on.

There is still work to do in increasing opportunities to recycle. Recycling plastics in specialized sectors like health care presents unique challenges due to stringent safety and regulatory requirements. However, innovative initiatives like the PVC 123 program demonstrate the feasibility and benefits of responsible plastic recycling, contributing to both environmental and economical sustainability.

Plastics are ubiquitous in hospitals. In fact they seem essential for health and safety. Plastic PPE is life-saving. Eliminating or restricting plastic in the health care space would come at a devastating cost.

We should focus on optimizing plastic use, implementing recycling programs, and exploring sustainable alternatives where feasible. We know that plastics have become deeply embedded in our daily lives for food packaging and medical equipment, but banning plastics would undoubtedly have far-reaching implications, both economically and socially.

In Canada, food waste is already a $49.6-billion concern and growing, 60% of which is thought to be avoidable. Considering plastics as toxic and attempting to ban them would add an additional 50% in waste, further exacerbating the problem and driving up costs. The number rises to 150% once we consider the entire supply chain. This is without even going into the 44.2 million in GHG emissions related to food waste, to which banning plastics would add another 22.1 million in GHG emissions. For perspective, this exceeds 8% of total national GHG emissions.

Environmentalists' targeting plastics leads to regressive outcomes. It shows that they care only about sensationalism and not about substance. Instead of solving problems, they are becoming part of the problem. Chris DeArmitt wrote a fantastic book that sums up the issue perfectly. It is called The Plastics Paradox. Let me cite it:

...we need to recognize that...damage happens because plastic and other articles are in places where they should not be. There would be no problem at all if people were not intentionally dumping plastic and other waste.... The problem is clearly not with plastic itself, but with the unconscionable behaviour of some humans who [litter]....

Banning plastics would not solve the problem; it would create more problems.

In the same Deloitte study that I mentioned earlier, it is estimated that the government's P2 plastics ban would create a $1-billion annual revenue loss for the plastics industry, a 60% increase to packaging costs and up to a 55% increase to operational costs should the agrifood sector lose access to plastic packaging. Fresh produce costs would increase up to 34%, and availability of fresh produce could be cut in half. This would be devastating to every Canadian who buys food, which is every single one of us. It also would mean roughly a $5.6-billion detriment to the Canadian produce industry.

Waste concerns are generated from the prediction that bulk packaging would be required to mitigate cost increases to farmers, who are price-takers, leading consumers to dispose of excess goods. Additionally, value-added products like pre-made salads or cut fruit, even fruit and vegetable platters, would no longer be viable without plastic storage, as there are no comparable alternatives readily available. Fresh produce represents less than 3% of the total plastic usage in Canada, and the NDP-Liberals' continued assault against plastics through bans would have a negligible impact on recycling.

Once again, let us take the information into consideration as we look to understand why the Federal Court overturned the single-use plastics ban, calling it “unreasonable and unconstitutional”. We should also note that it is saying that there is “no reasonable apprehension that all listed Plastic Manufactured Items (PMIs) are harmful”.

While the NDP-Liberals commit to an appeal, Canada's $35-billion plastics industry is not safe. I encourage sharing perspectives on the multi-faceted issue, considering both the challenges and the opportunities that a plastics ban might present. It is evident that while plastic pollution presents a pressing challenge, our focus should be on practical, actionable solutions rather than on radical bans not based in evidence.

We should seek predictability and manageable regulations that foster innovation and incentivize responsible behaviour. By fostering a culture of responsible consumption and waste management supported by clear and consistent regulations, we can make meaningful progress toward a more sustainable future.

A vote for Bill C-380 is a vote for common sense, and my message to Canadians is clear: Only Conservatives are working to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget, stop the crime and can the ban.

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

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I ask for unanimous consent to give my right of reply.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

Madam Speaker, it is incredibly dangerous to be right when one's government is so wrong. The NDP-Liberal government is wrong, and it is ignoring Canadians. It is ignoring the science, common sense, the cost of living crisis it created and the courts, when it tries to ban plastics. The NDP-Liberal government hates the facts on plastics. If Canadians are suffering now with skyrocketing bills, wait until the full ban of plastics is in effect.

Plastics make modern life affordable, reliable, practical and enjoyable. There are no Canadians left who can say the same about the Liberals. Wet, limp and utterly useless are paper straws, which Canadians are forced to use. They suck. Paper straws have a higher carbon footprint than plastic ones, making them worse for the environment. All the environmentally conscious people on the other side of the aisle, and we are conscious of the environment on this side, should remember that emissions are higher with a paper straw, and paper straws are worse for people.

Square this one for me: Canadians are suffering with the high cost of heating right now, which was driven up on purpose by the carbon tax to lower emissions. Although it is not working, that is the Liberals' intent. The same government is banning common consumer goods that have lower emissions than their replacements. The government is driving up emissions.

Someone please make sense of this. Grandma is turning down the heat this winter to lower emissions so the radical left can force Canadians to increase emissions in other parts of their lives. Does this make sense?

It is not just for the environment that paper straws suck; they are worse for our health. The science shows that the chemicals that coat paper products, making them somewhat waterproof, also unfortunately leach chemicals into our food and drink and then ultimately into our body. This is what the NDP-Liberals are forcing Canadians to use instead of plastic straws: an inferior product that is worse for their health. Is that not wacko? What they are doing is completely wacko.

Even as the science shows that the policy would hurt the environment and Canadians' health, it is also bad for Canadians' pocketbook during a cost of living crisis. Paper products cost more money than plastic ones. The ban would also make food more expensive because plastic extends the shelf life of food. That is why plastic-wrapped cucumbers last over two weeks longer.

Banning plastics would only drive up food costs, sending even more Canadians to the food bank. We know that over two million Canadians have to rely on a food bank because of the situation they find themselves in with the policies from the Liberal-NDP government. Conservatives will stop this soon. Do we want to make things cheaper for Canadians? We need to stop banning more affordable products. What Canadians really want is a ban on banning things, and the courts agree.

For the millions of Canadians who are thirsty for a common-sense change, dawn is breaking. There is a failing regime that is desperate to attract the most radical environmentalists to its cause. It has gone too far. Common-sense Canadians will soon punish the Liberal government, during a carbon tax election, for ignoring the science, ignoring the facts, ignoring the common sense, ignoring the provinces, ignoring the Constitution and ignoring its citizens. I believe that is why most Canadians are ignoring the Prime Minister.

In the end, it is not really about straws that suck or do not suck, or about flat wooden spoons, weird forks or even plastic itself. It is about power and control and about an out-of-control Liberal government that does not want to find practical solutions to problems but wants to virtue-signal for its shallow political interests; that is all the government is about right now. It is using the heavy hand of government to get its way.

We need a new government that is about practical solutions and not about feelings and virtue signals. Does the government even care about the garbage in our environment? This is the most infuriating thing for me: There is an issue here, and the government is addressing it with a ban that obviously has had zero effect on our climate and our environment.

Between 88% and 99% of the garbage in our oceans comes from 10 rivers in the developing world. Instead of the millions of dollars that we have wasted on the ban, what if we took a bit of that money and tried to introduce a waste disposal system in the developing world, which has the 10 rivers that are causing the majority of the problem? That is a common-sense approach: not to ban waste but to manage it, reuse it and ultimately recycle it.

I have a couple of common-sense—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

We are out of time.

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

Madam Speaker, I believe I have one minute left. When I asked for unanimous consent, the clock continued to tick. I believe there is an error that caused me not to have the full five minutes.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I will verify that.

I have confirmed that the member had the full five minutes. That is the clock we guide ourselves by.

The hon. parliamentary secretary for the government House leader is rising on a point of order.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I suspect if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to see the clock as 6:30 p.m. so we can get back to Government Orders.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.