Debates of Nov. 28th, 2024

Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999

[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.