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.