We believe that it creates a lot of uncertainty in the marketplace. Individuals who have their food packaged at the local grocery store, the electronic devices they utilize every day, these items they use are not toxic. The designation is inappropriate.
The ability to have the toxic designation will basically ricochet throughout the world, we believe, and there will be other jurisdictions that may take up the banner. You're looking at an item, plastic—from the petrochemical sector—that is paramount if Canada is looking to achieve its greenhouse gas emissions targets. Plastic contributes to GHG reduction every day in the lightweighting of vehicles, the products that we utilize and the preservation of food. The reality is that the toxic label is inappropriate; it's incorrect.
We are looking for a national framework to deal with plastic waste, not an item. CEPA is a criminal statute, and it's basically designed to punish and administrate the actions of individuals, not particular products. If you deem a global commodity like plastic as toxic, there are other jurisdictions where investment will take place. Unfortunately, Canada will lose out on one of its main objectives, that of being a leader in the circular economy and tackling GHGs. To reach those levels, plastic needs to be paramount in the program.