Proposed Single-use Plastics Prohibition Regulations – Summary of public comments

Scope

Summary of comments

  1. The list of banned single-use plastic items should be expanded to include other harmful items, including single-use plastic hot and cold drink cups and lids, bottles and caps, food wrappers and cigarette filters.
  2. There is uncertainty as to whether additional single-use plastics will be banned in the future. This creates uncertainty for businesses.
  3. The Government’s regulatory approach to plastics, in particular the use of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA), is harmful to the plastics economy.
  4. The list of banned foodservice ware should be expanded to include those with problematic additives, such as bisphenols, PFAS, phthalates and pigments (especially black) that pose a risk to human health.

Responses

  1. We have developed a management framework for single-use plastics, which provides a transparent and evidence-based approach for determining how to address the risks to the environment posed by single-use plastics. Using this framework and drawing on the best available evidence, we identified 6 categories of single-use plastics that meet the criteria for a ban, as these items are prevalent in the environment, pose a threat of harm to wildlife and their habitat, are difficult to recycle and have available alternatives. Single-use plastic cups are included in the scope of the ban, within the category of foodservice ware made from problematic plastic.

    The management framework also identifies other instruments as being appropriate for managing other single-use plastics such as food wrappers and plastic water bottles. Going forward, we will continue to apply the framework and assess the evidence to make any future decisions on single-use plastics. This will include reviewing performance data for existing measures and working with partners and stakeholders to identify areas where further action is needed. For example, cigarette filters are being assessed by us to determine whether they are plastic pollutants of concern, and the result of this assessment could be reflected in future initiatives. In addition, the Government is committed to working with provinces and territories to:
    • implement and enforce an ambitious recycling target of 90% – aligned with Quebec and the European Union – for plastic beverage containers; and
    • ensure that producers, not taxpayers, are responsible for the cost of managing their plastic waste, in particular packaging and single-use plastics.
  2. We will continue to monitor the latest research and data relating to plastic pollution in the environment and will consult with Canadians if additional items are identified to be of concern.
  3. CEPA is one of the Government’s key pieces of legislation for protecting the environment and preventing pollution. The Act provides a broad suite of tools that allow us flexibility to tailor measures to the issues needing to be addressed. Measures developed under CEPA will help prevent plastic pollution and contribute to a circular economy that keeps plastics in the economy and out of the environment. We will work with partners and stakeholders to ensure that any measures developed are appropriate, fit for purpose, and avoid unintended consequences. CEPA also requires that we consult with the public and seek public comment on any proposed actions under the Act, providing stakeholders with the opportunity to engage.

    We are committed to continue working with other jurisdictions and stakeholders, to explore potential actions that could be taken to better manage chemical additives in plastics.
  4. Under the Chemicals Management Plan, we are working to assess substances for the potential to pose a risk to the environment and human health and manage those risks using instruments including CEPA. For example, in 2021 we published a notice of intent to address a broad class of PFAS. This includes investing in research and monitoring, collecting and examining information on PFAS to inform a class-based approach, and reviewing policy developments in other jurisdictions.

Coming into force

Summary of comments

  1. The proposed Regulations must come into force before the end of 2022.
  2. The implementation timeline should be extended to allow sufficient time for impacted businesses to manage the transition efficiently and economically. An accelerated timeline will hurt these businesses by limiting their ability to pivot. Transitioning operations is not an action that can be delivered quickly; it requires significant engineering, planning and procurement of long lead capital assets.
  3. The coming-into-force period for ring carriers cannot be shortened without incurring significant costs and disruptions to manufacturers and distributors. Shortened timelines will not be sufficient to select alternative packaging, purchase and receive new equipment, and rearrange production facilities.

Responses

  1. In recognition of the actions of industry leaders and other jurisdictions, changing consumer preferences, as well as market trends that are moving away from SUPs, and the overarching goal of preventing plastic pollution, we discussed with stakeholders the possibility of shortening the coming into force period over the course of the 70-day consultation period for the proposed Regulations. We have now adopted an accelerated timeline for the implementation of the proposed Regulations, with final Regulations expected to be published in June 2022. As a result, prohibitions on the manufacture and import of single-use plastic checkout bags, cutlery, stir sticks, foodservice ware made from or containing problematic plastics, and straws (except flexible straws) will be in force as of December 2022. Certain other prohibitions will come into force later to provide businesses sufficient time to deplete stockpiles, secure alternatives, and retool operations.
  2. We are aware that businesses may need time to transition away from the single-use plastics being banned or restricted. The final Regulations therefore provide a transition time that allows businesses to adapt to the new rules with minimal disruption. This timeline is the direct result of stakeholder consultations and feedback from industry representatives who voiced concern over accelerated coming-into-force dates. We are also aware that the market has already made significant progress in moving away from the single-use plastic products that are proposed for prohibition.
  3. For ring carriers, the prohibitions on manufacture, import and sale will remain as proposed in the draft Regulations published in Canada Gazette, Part I in December 2021. Prohibitions on manufacture and import will come into force 12 months after registration of the final Regulations, and the prohibitions on sale for this item will come into force 24 months after registration.

Export

Summary of comments

  1. The exemption for export of the single-use plastics should be removed, as it runs contrary to the objectives of the Regulations to prevent plastic pollution, and fails to recognize plastic pollution as a global, transboundary issue.
  2. The exemption for export should not be removed, as it provides a lifeline to many manufacturers by allowing them to continue to generate revenue and expand international market exposure, while working to pivot their operations to meet domestic market needs.

Responses

  1. In response to comments received urging us to remove the exemption for export found in the draft Regulations, we consulted with a broad range of stakeholders on the best approach for recognizing the global nature of plastic pollution and Canada’s commitments under the Ocean Plastics Charter, while minimizing costs for industry. It was determined that a 42-month phase-out period for export would be most appropriate. This determination reflects the pressing need to prevent pollution, while also recognizing that initiatives are also underway in export markets such as the United States to reduce demand for single-use plastics. A gradual phase out allows Canadian businesses to minimize disruption to their operations, while aligning with broader market and regulatory trends globally.

Cost-benefit analysis

Summary of comments

  1. We need to reflect the full cost on municipalities of managing substitute items, many of which are not recyclable, and the lost economic value from removing recyclable single‐use plastics from provincial EPR programs.
  2. The scope should be expanded and assumptions revised in the business impacts and cost-benefit analysis sections of the Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement (RIAS) to allow for the inclusion of job losses, tax losses and regional impacts of the proposed Regulations.

Responses

  1. The cost-benefit analysis conducted for the Regulations provides an estimate of costs to waste management systems from substitutes made from heavier materials such as paper and wood, as well as avoided costs for litter cleanup from less plastic pollution.

    The 6 categories of single-use plastics banned by the Regulations present a range of value recovery challenges, such as not being sortable due to size and shape, hampering value recovery systems by becoming entangled in equipment, and contaminating otherwise-recyclable bales of plastics. As a result, removing these single-use plastics from the recycling stream is expected to improve value-recovery outcomes.
  2. The RIAS includes a full monetized analysis of lost profit opportunity for manufacturers of single-use plastics to better reflect the costs to industry. The analysis also indicates that job losses and tax losses are distributional, as the resources will be shifted onto other markets. Regional costs are considered proportionately to the corresponding population size.

Non-conventional plastics

Summary of comments

  1. Non-conventional plastics (including compostable, bio-based and biodegradable plastics) should be prohibited alongside plastics made from conventional, petroleum-based feedstock. These non-conventional plastics have been found to contaminate recycling streams and are not guaranteed to biodegrade if littered in the natural environment, or sent to local industrial compost facilities. Restricting the sale of these items at the highest level of government will help municipalities and other local governments better manage organics collection and keep the finished compost material at its highest and best use.
  2. The Regulations should provide an exemption for certified compostable single-use plastics. This would promote ongoing innovation, clean growth and circularity in this sector. Non-conventional plastics should be treated as a solution to plastic pollution, and not as contributing to the issue.
  3. If non-conventional single-use plastic items are restricted under the proposed Regulations, the federal government should work to establish standards and consistent definitions for compostable, biodegradable and bio-based plastics. There is currently no national compostable performance standard that the production and labelling of these items must adhere to and so it is unclear how well they can be processed in existing facilities.

Responses

  1. Of the 6 categories of single-use plastic items being targeted for a ban in the proposed Regulations, non-conventional plastic resins would be prohibited for 5 (checkout bags, cutlery, ring carriers, stir sticks and straws). Single-use plastic food service ware (that is, clamshell containers, lidded containers, boxes, cups, plates and bowls) made from oxo-degradable plastics would be prohibited. However, other non-conventional plastic resins, including certified compostable plastics, would continue to be allowed for food service ware.
  2. We recognize the potential advantages in some cases of using single-use items made from non-conventional plastics in place of items made from conventional plastics. Some of these benefits include reducing fossil fuel consumption. We also recognize that some of these benefits are complicated by poor recovery of compostable plastics. Some compostable plastics are not accepted in certain organic waste facilities, leading to their landfilling or incineration. In some cases they may contaminate the recycling stream of conventional plastics. A Science Assessment of Plastics Pollution published by the Government in 2020 found very little post-consumer plastic is managed through industrial composting facilities, that difficulties distinguishing compostable from non-compostable plastics create contamination problems for processors, and some certified compostable plastics are not accepted by many composting facilities in Canada. It also found a lack of significant evidence that biodegradable, compostable, biobased, and oxo-degradable plastics will fully degrade in natural environments.

    We are working with partners and stakeholders, including provinces and territories, to develop the knowledge base around non-conventional plastics, which will inform future actions to promote innovation, clean growth and circularity in this sector.
  3. We are working with partners and stakeholders, including provinces and territories, to develop the knowledge base around bio-based, compostable and biodegradable plastics, and to advance standards and innovation.

Guidance on alternatives

Summary of comments

  1. The proposed guidance document titled Guidance for Selecting Alternatives to the Single-Use Plastics in the Proposed Single-use Plastic Prohibition Regulations does not adequately prepare businesses to make informed decisions on alternative products. The guide should provide greater clarity on different alternative products based on a life cycle analysis (LCA) to ensure that the transition away from single-use plastics does not produce a greater environmental footprint than current products.

Responses

  1. The Guidance for Selecting Alternatives to the Single-Use Plastics in the Proposed Single-use Plastics Prohibition Regulations is intended to assist business as they make decisions on alternative products or systems to prohibited single-use plastics. It provides considerations and suggestions for businesses, based on decision-making frameworks that emphasize pollution prevention and the circular economy, including the waste management hierarchy and our management framework for single-use plastics. For example, the Guidance prioritizes reduction strategies and reusable alternatives to single-use plastic items, which are preferable in terms of overall long-term costs and environmental impacts.

    The Guidance is intended to complement, not replace, decision-making processes within organizations, which may also draw from other sources such as LCAs. LCAs are highly variable processes. Parameters should reflect the contexts and purposes for which they are conducted. Given the wide variety of situations in which single-use plastics are used, it would not be feasible or useful for us to conduct LCAs or use them as the basis for the Guidance.

Extended producer responsibility (EPR)

Summary of comments

  1. We should not ban items specified for inclusion in provincial EPR programs or where clear provincial action and industry solutions are being implemented for post‐use management of plastic items.
  2. Instead of banning certain single-use plastics, we should work to harmonize provincial EPR programs and standardize accepted materials to increase efficiency in the recycling industry. Making producers fully responsible for the lifecycle management of the plastic products and packaging that are sold in the Canadian marketplace is the best way to move Canada toward a circular economy for plastics.

Responses

  1. The single-use plastic items that would be banned or restricted under the proposed Regulations have been determined by us to be value-recovery problematic, meaning they have low or nil recycling rates, hamper or disrupt recycling systems, and have barriers to increasing recycling rates.

    Banning these hard-to-recycle single-use plastics will likely make recycling programs for packaging and other single-use plastics cheaper and more efficient to run, by removing from recycling systems products that are difficult or expensive to recycle successfully. For example, we have heard from recyclers that single-use plastic checkout bags create frequent and significant operational delays in recycling facilities because they become caught in machinery and must be removed by hand.
  2. We agree that EPR is an important element in achieving zero plastic waste, and is working with provinces and territories to ensure EPR is consistent, comprehensive and transparent across Canada.

    This includes collaborating with provinces and territories through the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment to develop guidance to facilitate consistent EPR policies across Canada. We have also committed to developing a federal public registry and requiring producers to report annually on plastics in the Canadian economy. Going forward, we will continue to work closely with jurisdictions, industry and communities to make sure EPR is being used to its greatest potential to collect and divert plastics from landfill.

    The 6 categories of single-use plastics banned by the Regulations present a range of value recovery challenges, such as not being sortable due to size and shape, hampering value recovery systems by becoming entangled in equipment, and contaminating otherwise-recyclable bales of plastics. As a result, removing these single-use plastics from the recycling stream is expected to improve value-recovery outcomes.

Innovation and investment

Summary of comments

  1. We should continue to invest in the country’s recycling infrastructure and not resort to banning products, which will cause economic losses. The creation of an innovation and infrastructure fund for the reuse and recycling of plastics would provide an opportunity to further identify new solutions and technologies.

Responses

  1. We are committed to supporting innovation and new technologies to facilitate the transition to a circular economy for plastics and prevent plastic pollution. The Regulations target those single-use plastic items that are prevalent in the environment, pose a threat of harm to wildlife, and problematic to recycle. The Regulations will signal to industry as to what is environmentally undesirable and unsustainable and open the door for innovation on alternative solutions.

    More broadly, we have implemented a number of measures to support innovation. This includes the Canadian Plastics Innovation Challenges, which provide funding to small and medium-sized enterprises to incentivize the development of technology to address plastic waste. Through the Canadian Plastics Innovation Challenges, we committed nearly $19 million to support Canadian innovators to develop solutions for plastics challenges, with the latest challenge concluding in 2021. We continue to encourage investment in innovation for plastics and recycled content.

Definitions

Summary of comments

  1. The proposed regulations should include very clear definitions for each item type, along with a list of allowed and prohibited material types. Currently, the Regulations do not include this information.

Responses

  1. Definitions are provided for the single-use plastic items being targeted by the Regulations. Unless explicitly stated, the Regulations apply to a range of material types. An example of where the material types are identified is the definition of “single-use plastic foodservice ware”, which lists several kinds of plastic that are prohibited for that category, including polystyrene foam and polyvinyl chloride.

    We will also be publishing a technical guidance document to accompany the final Regulations. This document will provide additional clarification on the scope of the Regulations, including providing examples, for illustrative purposes, of the types of products included or not included within the scope of each definition.

Straws

Summary of comments

  1. The exemptions in the proposed Regulations for single-use plastic flexible straws balance the needs of some Canadians and with the protection of the environment. The exemptions take into consideration the needs of persons with disabilities and provide adequate accessibility to these products when needed.
  2. Further consultation is needed with those living with disabilities, and with accessibility experts, to establish best practices for medically necessary SUP flexible straws, to better understand the needs of people living with disabilities, and to identify potential challenges with the proposed Regulations.

Responses

  1. We are committed to creating the conditions to keep single-use plastic flexible straws available for anyone who needs them. The final Regulations will allow Canadians with disabilities to continue to purchase single-use plastic flexible straws for personal use, as well as to access them in hospitals and other medical or long-term care settings. These exemptions seek to balance the need to ensure accessibility options in Canada while protecting the environment from plastic pollution.
  2. We enacted the Regulations following several rounds of public consultation, beginning in 2020 and continuing through winter 2022. This included in-person virtual meetings with disability advocates, municipalities, and others able to speak to the needs of persons with disabilities, as well as opportunities to provide written comments. We also received numerous written comments that spoke to the needs of persons with disabilities. This input helped inform our approach to prohibiting single-use plastic straws while continuing to allow access to single-use plastic flexible straws for people who need them.

Strategic environmental assessment (SEA)

Summary of comments

  1. The SEA did not include all benefits to the environment and human health from the reduced exposure to plastic pollution.
  2. We should focus efforts on preventing pollution (for example, through deposit systems or disposal charges), reducing consumption, encouraging reuse, urging behavioural changes in consumers (for example, to recycle) and improving waste management (for example, by developing consistent recycling standards). These efforts will have a greater impact on the environment than the implementation a ban on single-use plastic items where the substitutes may also end up in the environment.

Responses

  1. The SEA, summarized in the Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement accompanying the final Regulations, reviews the available evidence on the Regulations’ potential positive and negative environmental effects, including a review of available life-cycle assessments (LCAs), the Science Assessment of Plastic Pollution, peer-reviewed studies on the downstream harms caused by single-use plastics and available litter data. While the SEA may not reflect all conceivable evidence sources, it does provide a thorough analysis of the environmental effects of the Regulations at each stage in the product life cycle (upstream, use, and downstream). The SEA concluded that the Regulations would have significant positive environmental effects in terms of reduced plastic pollution and waste.
  2. The goal of the final Regulations is to reduce plastic pollution caused by problematic single-use plastics. By prohibiting 6 categories of single-use plastics, the Regulations are projected to reduce plastic pollution by 5% and plastic waste by 3% by 2030. This approach aligns with the waste management hierarchy, which prioritizes prevention or other activities such as recycling. The Regulations will also provide businesses and consumers with an opportunity to switch to more circular products and systems that create less waste. To help facilitate these switches, the Government has published a guidance document outlining considerations for adopting alternatives.

Schedule 1 Order listing

Summary of comments

  1. Many industry stakeholders expressed that they are firmly opposed to a Schedule 1 designation for “plastic manufactured items” under CEPA and bans on certain single-use plastic (SUP) products as a means to regulate plastic waste. They stated that CEPA is the wrong tool to approach the end-of-life management of plastics and it is not designed to regulate a broad set of consumer products.

Responses

  1. The scientific considerations that underlay the Order adding “plastic manufactured items” to Schedule 1 of CEPA are related to the ability of macroplastics to have an immediate or long-term harmful effect on the environment or its biological diversity as set out in section 64(a) of CEPA. The addition of plastic manufactured items to Schedule 1 of CEPA gives the Government access to authorities to regulate and otherwise manage these items to prevent pollution.

International alignment

Summary of comments

  1. We must maintain our awareness of international standards surrounding single-use plastics and work to at least match these standards. There needs to be a concerted global effort for more responsible management of plastics, and Canada should be a leader on this front.

Responses

  1. Internationally, Canada joins other jurisdictions in prohibiting harmful single-use plastics. Our comprehensive agenda to achieve zero plastic waste is in line with actions being taken across the globe, including by many peer jurisdictions such as the European Union, United Kingdom, and many US states.

    Canada continues to provide leadership on the global stage to help address plastic pollution. In 2018, Canada spearheaded the Ocean Plastics Charter, under its G7 presidency, to move toward a more resource-efficient and circular approach to produce, use and manage plastic, and reduce plastic pollution and transition to a circular economy. More recently, Canada co-chaired negotiations toward the development of a legally binding international agreement to end on plastic pollution. Canada’s leadership among international partners strengthens our collective efforts to keep plastic in the economy and out of the environment.

    The proposed Regulations are consistent with Canada’s commitments under the Ocean Plastics Charter and other international partnerships and demonstrate Canada’s continued leadership to reduce plastic pollution, including significantly reducing the unnecessary use of single-use plastics.

Enforcement

Summary of comments

  1. Municipal governments would appreciate understanding in more detail how you intend to enforce the proposed Regulations at the local level, and how that enforcement landscape may impact local governments.

Responses

  1. The Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement (RIAS) accompanying the final Regulations states that the Regulations will be made under CEPA, so federal enforcement officers will, when verifying compliance with the Regulations, act in accordance with the Compliance and Enforcement Policy for CEPA, 1999. Verification of compliance with the Regulations will include site visits, review of records, reusable product testing (if applicable), and review of written transit documents. Following an inspection or an investigation, if an enforcement officer discovers an alleged violation, the officer will choose the appropriate enforcement action based on factors outlined in the Policy. More information on the Compliance and Enforcement Policy for CEPA (1999)  is available. It will not be the responsibility of local governments to enforce the Regulations.

Foodservice ware

Summary of comments

  1. Foodservice ware made from plastic deemed “problematic” should not be subject to the proposed Regulations given that industry solutions exist for end of life management.

Responses

  1. We identified foodservice ware made from problematic plastic using the management framework for single-use plastics, which was developed as a tool to provide a transparent and evidence-based approach for determining how to address the risks to the environment posed by single-use plastics.

    The items chosen are prevalent in the environment, difficult to recycle, pose a threat of harm to wildlife and their habitat and have available alternatives. Based on available evidence, including feedback from stakeholders gathered over several rounds of consultation, foodservice ware is prevalent in the environment and poses a threat of harm to wildlife, and foodservice ware made from or containing the plastics or additives listed in the Regulations is also value-recovery problematic, in that it hampers recycling systems or wastewater treatment, has low or very low recycling rates (that is, below 20%), and barriers to increasing recycling rates exist.

Who participated

The following organizations provided written comments:

 

Page details

Date modified: