Environment Committee on June 11th, 2026

[Greg Moffatt]

The simple answer is no.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

In the last panel, we talked a little bit about what the solution could be rather than an outright ban. If the goal is to reduce plastic waste, would options like you outlined in your opening remarks, extended producer responsibility, better collection, better recycling, having some of these companies that are producing the products have the products be recyclable...? The fact that that doesn't exist is not aided by a ban.

Is there not a better approach where we could have the benefits of food security, food safety, food length and all of the other benefits accrued across society from plastics but with a system that can enable economic growth throughout the recycling and sorting system?

Is there not a better way that we could be doing this rather than outright bans?

[Greg Moffatt]

British Columbia is a good example. They do have product bans as well, which industry is generally not supportive of, but I would say it's a systems problem, and that's the way to approach this. It's not just industry opposed to the federal government's actions. Governments are involved in the legal suit as well because of jurisdictional authority. Ultimately, the Supreme Court will decide.

This is about collaboration. This is not just about industry. My industry doesn't just produce straws and beer can holders. They are plastics that are used across the value chain. We represent converters. We represent recyclers. We represent technology developers and manufacturers. We represent brand owners. This is not just about straws and other single-use items. This is about thinking about this issue from a systemic approach, and plastics are not the problem. It's what we do with them after they've served their useful purpose that's the problem, and that's what we should focus on.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

This is poorly designed. The ban process was poorly executed; hence, the initial court ruling was what it was. We'll wait to see what the Supreme Court has to say about it.

How do we walk this back? What is the off-ramp where we can make it clear that the goal is not more pollution, that it is not more plastics entering our environment, broadly speaking, but actually less waste, better environmental outcomes and a better recycling system?

[Greg Moffatt]

We are asking the federal government, along with the provincial governments, to consider federal legislation enabling a circular economy and for the federal government to set national standards. One of the ways you get more recycled content into the market is by creating demand for it and making it more economical. That is the pathway forward.

Provinces need to continue to move forward on extended producer responsibility. Make it better. Make it more effective. Industry needs to continue to do its part to innovate and design for recyclability.

There is a society issue here, as well. As consumers, we need to become informed. Industry and governments need to help create that information, but we need to make better decisions about the things we do with products—not just plastics but products generally—once we're done with them.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Have you shared that plan, that alternative version of how this could work, with the government, with the Prime Minister?

[Greg Moffatt]

We did write a letter to the Prime Minister earlier this year. We sent it to the various provincial and territorial premiers and ministers of environment. We have not had a response from anybody, so it's not just a prime ministerial issue.

We've talked to Environment and Climate Change Canada. They're interested. They haven't said no. They're open to a conversation.

We've had conversations in Alberta, Ontario and Quebec. They're not opposed to it. They're interested in a conversation, but this is not a simple solution. It requires some focus and attention, and hopefully we'll get there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shannon Miedema]

Thank you very much, Mr. Leslie.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

It requires something more than virtue signalling—

[The Chair, Liberal, Shannon Miedema]

Mr. Leslie, your time is up. I gave you a bonus minute.

We'll now go to Mr. Watchorn for five minutes.

[Tim Watchorn, Liberal, Les Pays-d'en-Haut, QC]

Thank you.

The region north of Montreal is ready to reduce single-use plastic products. In fact, it's a trailblazer in this area. There's an organization back home called Tricentris. It's one of the most successful sorting centres in Canada. This organization has implemented a glass recycling process called micronization, which allows the use of recycled glass in concrete manufacturing, among other things. It's a good way to recycle glass.

However, even with all this technology, they've never been able to find a consistent market for plastic. In my riding, there are pioneers in this area, including the City of Prévost. I'll give you an example. The City of Prévost decided to ban windshield washer containers with the help of businesses. Businesses were ready to do that, and citizens were happy. They set up refilling stations. Now we're starting to see them all over the province.

We also worked with restaurant owners. I would say there are more restaurants per square kilometre in my riding than anywhere else, because it's a recreational and tourism region. There's a reusable container program for restaurants, where people leave with their reusable leftover containers. There are no more plastic containers. Containers are reusable and refundable.

What would be the next steps?

I think we're ready to reduce plastic even further, because the less plastic we produce, the less ends up in the environment.

What will be the next step in terms of reduction?

Plastic products are currently banned.

Ms. Wirsig, you talked about produce bags. Can you give us other examples?

[Karen Wirsig]

That is a good question.

I'm going to say this in English because I work in English, and sometimes I forget the words for other things.

First of all, when I said nuisance packaging before, obviously fruit and vegetable produce bags would be good to put on the list, and overwrap, anything that is not necessary to contain a product that needs packaging, but rather it is to contain several packages together to make me buy more. Get rid of it. Polystyrene and PVC in packaging is toxic, and it really messes up recycling. If we want to have any plastics recycling at all, we have to get rid of that garbage out of our plastic products.

I support, very much, Surfrider and Don't Mess with the Don in their quest to get rid of single-use coffee cups and lids.

Actually, what you talked about in Prévost, which is a reusable cup program, we're seeing that in Banff, Whistler and Winnipeg—that's a new one for me—so it's coming across the country. I think what the federal government can do is help municipalities build that infrastructure so that reusable cups you can take back anywhere become the norm, and we don't have all this garbage around.

[Tim Watchorn, Liberal, Les Pays-d'en-Haut, QC]

Actually, we have those in a lot of our events now—cups you can buy and then bring back.

Mr. Merante, I have a quick question. I want to talk about the toxicity of plastic.

The Federal Court of Appeal decision shows that overwhelming scientific evidence supports the finding that manufactured plastic items are ubiquitous in the environment and cause immediate and long-term harms.

What are the harms being created here?

[Anthony Merante]

You have both direct and indirect harms.

As direct harms, you have the suffocation of marine life and the ingestion of plastics, which can contaminate seafood and be passed through the food chain back to us. Plastic pollution does not stop at the shoreline. It can come onto our dinner plate. It can also degrade water quality. It can degrade critical ecosystems like kelp forests and coral reefs.

Then you have the chemicals in plastics. As mentioned before, there's a huge emerging sector trying to figure out their ecotoxicity to wildlife and water quality, as well as to people. Every week, we're getting a new study coming out. I implore Environment and Climate Change Canada to work with Health Canada to have a comprehensive understanding of what they're doing to our ecosystems, our food, our wildlife and ourselves.

[Tim Watchorn, Liberal, Les Pays-d'en-Haut, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shannon Miedema]

All right. That wraps up our session.

Thank you so much to the witnesses for their time today. We really appreciate it.

This was a one-day study, so pursuant to the motion, the committee can report its findings to the House.

Is it the pleasure of the committee to proceed to the drafting of the report?

Mr. Leslie.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

I'm just curious. In the motion, the minister was invited. Because she declined to come on the specific date we offered, is she not further invited to conclude the motion as written?

[The Chair, Liberal, Shannon Miedema]

I don't know. She wasn't able to attend today.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

We invited her to attend today, but shouldn't it be a more open invitation? We were pretty specific: Can she come on June 11? She said no, but the motion was to invite the minister and have up to two meetings, as I recall. I don't have it in front of me. I just feel we shouldn't wrap it up until we give the minister an opportunity to come and talk to the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shannon Miedema]

Mr. Clerk, do you want to weigh in on the requirements, based on the language of the motion?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Leif-Erik Aune]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The enabling motion prescribed a study of one meeting, including an invitation for the minister to appear. The minister informed the committee that she wasn't available, so we proceeded as we have today.

I'm happy to follow the will of the members and ready to take note, if that answers your question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shannon Miedema]

Really, it's—

[An hon. member]

Let's do it in the summer, in your riding.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shannon Miedema]

Would the committee like to delay the beginning of the drafting of the report? The analysts don't need to start it if you would like to try inviting the minister a second time, at some later date. It would be in the fall. That would delay the finalizing of the report, but if it's within the proper process and procedure, we can certainly do that.

Mr. St-Pierre.

[Eric St-Pierre, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

I think we're done with this study and happy to table it.

That's our position.