Environment Committee on June 11th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Shannon Miedema]

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

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

[Wade Grant, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses.

I'll start with you, Mr. Thurlow.

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

[W. Scott Thurlow]

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

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

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

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

[Wade Grant, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

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

[W. Scott Thurlow]

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

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

[Wade Grant, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you.

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

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

[Peter Ross]

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

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

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

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

[Wade Grant, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shannon Miedema]

Thank you very much.

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

We will suspend to switch over to our next panel.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shannon Miedema]

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will begin with Mr. Moffatt.

The floor is yours for five minutes.

[Greg Moffatt, President and Chief Executive Officer, Chemistry Industry Association of Canada]

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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shannon Miedema]

Thank you very much, Mr. Moffatt.

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

[Karen Wirsig, Senior Program Manager, Plastics, Environmental Defence Canada]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shannon Miedema]

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

[Anthony Merante, Senior Plastics Campaigner, Oceana Canada]

Good afternoon, Madam Chair.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Chair, Liberal, Shannon Miedema]

Thank you very much, Mr. Merante.

We will now go to questions from committee members.

We will begin with Mr. Ross for six minutes.

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, witnesses, for your testimony.

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

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

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

[Greg Moffatt]

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

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

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

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

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

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

[Greg Moffatt]

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

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

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

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

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

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

[Greg Moffatt]

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

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

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

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

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

[The Chair, Liberal, Shannon Miedema]

Thank you very much, Mr. Ross.

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

[Chris Malette, Liberal, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for being here today.

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

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