News release from the Coalition of Concerned Manufacturers and Businesses of Canada

“We must focus on practical solutions and upgrading our recycling infrastructure, not ridiculous restrictions that will harm our health care system, sanitary food supply, increase costs and endanger Canadians’ safety, among other downsides.”

This week Ottawa welcomes 4,000 delegates from the United Nations to discuss how they will oversee a reduction and even possible elimination of plastics from our lives. The key problem is no one has ever figured out how they will replace this essential component of our modern economy and society. The Coalition of Concerned Manufacturers and Businesses of Canada (CCMBC) has launched an information campaign to discuss the realities of plastic, how it contributes massively to our society and the foolishness of those who think plastics can be eliminated or greatly reduced without creating serious problems for key industries such as health care, sanitary food provision, many essential consumer products and safety/protective equipment, among others. CCMBC President Catherine Swift said “The key goal should be to keep plastics in the economy and out of the environment, not eliminate many valuable and irreplaceable plastic items. The plastics and petrochemical industries represent about 300,000 jobs and tens of billions contribution to GDP in Canada, and are on a growth trend.”

The UN campaign to ban plastics to date has been thwarted by reality and facts. UN efforts to eliminate plastics began in 2017, motivated by such terrible images as rivers with massive amounts of floating plastic and animals suffering from negative effects of plastic materials. Although these images were dramatic and disturbing, they do not represent the big picture of what is really happening and do not take into account the many ways plastics are hugely positive elements of modern society. Swift added “Furthermore, Canada is not one of the problem countries with respect to plastics waste. Developing countries are the main culprits and any solution must involve helping the leading plastics polluters find workable solutions and better recycling technology and practices.”

The main goal of plastic is to preserve and protect. Can you imagine health care without sanitary, flexible, irreplaceable and recyclable plastic products? How would we keep our food fresh, clean and healthy without plastic wraps and packaging? Plastic replaces many heavier and less durable materials in so many consumer products too numerous to count. Plastics help the environment by reducing food waste, replacing heavier materials in automobiles and other products that make them more energy-efficient. Many plastics are infinitely recyclable and innovations are taking place to improve them constantly. What is also less known is that most of the replacements for plastics are more expensive and actually worse for the environment.

Swift stated “Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault has been convinced by the superficial arguments that plastics are always bad despite the facts. He has pursued a campaign against all plastics as a result, without factoring in the reality of the immense value of plastic products and that nothing can replace their many attributes. Fortunately, the Canadian Federal court overturned his absurd ban on a number of plastic products on the basis that it was unscientific, impractical and impinged upon provincial jurisdiction.” Sadly, Guilbeault and his Liberal cohorts plan to appeal this legal decision despite its common-sense conclusions. Opinion polls of Canadians show that a strong majority would prefer this government abandon its plastics crusade at this point, but history shows these Liberals prefer pursuing their unrealistic and costly ideologies instead of policies that Canadians support.

The bottom line is that plastics are an essential part of our modern society and opposition has been based on erroneous premises and ill-informed environmentalist claims. Swift concluded “Canada’s record on plastics is one of the best in the world. This doesn’t mean the status quo is sufficient, but we must focus on practical solutions and upgrading our recycling infrastructure, not ridiculous restrictions that will harm our health care system, sanitary food supply, increase costs and endanger Canadians’ safety, among other downsides.” The current Liberal government approach is one that has no basis in fact or science and emphasizes virtue-signaling over tangible and measurable results.  Swift noted “The UN’s original founding purpose after World War II was to prevent another world war. Given our fractious international climate, they should stick to their original goal instead of promoting social justice warrior causes that are unhelpful and expensive.”

The CCMBC was formed in 2016 with a mandate to advocate for proactive and innovative policies that are conducive to manufacturing and business retention and safeguarding job growth in Canada.

SOURCE Coalition of Concerned Manufacturers and Businesses of Canada

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Randal O’Toole

Rail advocates admit that trains can’t compete with airliners over long distances or with cars over short distances but claim there is a middle distance – supposedly around 150 to 800 kilometers – in which rail has an advantage over its competitors. That would be true only if the trains were almost 100 percent subsidized.

The Canadian government is considering spending $6 billion to $12 billion to introduce what it calls “high-frequency trains” between Toronto and Quebec City. Though some media reports have described these as high-speed trains (which generally means trains capable of going 250 kilometers per hour), they won’t be. Building such a rail line would easily cost $60 billion and probably much more.

Passenger-train advocates argue that Canada needs to join the international race to have the fastest trains in the world. But this is a race Canada can afford to lose because the country has something that is faster and far less costly: jet airliners.

High-speed trains were already obsolete in 1964, when Japan started operating its first bullet trains. Six years before that, Boeing had introduced the 707 and Douglas the DC-8, both of which cruised four times faster than the early bullet trains and twice as fast as the fastest trains in the world today.

Aside from speed, airliners also have a huge cost advantage because they don’t require a lot of expensive infrastructure between cities. While airports are infrastructure, the only infrastructure airliners really need are paved runways and perhaps a Quonset hut for ticket agents, baggage handling, and a waiting room—which is all that some of Canada’s more remote airports have.

Today’s big-city airports with huge concourses, shops, and jetways were built up over time and mostly paid for out of ticket fees. In contrast, rail advocates want taxpayers to put up tens of billions of dollars before a single wheel turns in the hope that trains that are slower than flying, less convenient than driving, and more expensive than both will somehow attract a significant number of travelers.

Rail advocates admit that trains can’t compete with airliners over long distances or with cars over short distances but claim there is a middle distance – supposedly around 150 to 800 kilometers – in which rail has an advantage over its competitors. That would be true only if the trains were almost 100 percent subsidized.

Air Canada and its competitors currently offer more than three dozen flights a day between Toronto and Montreal with fares starting at $118, less than 25 cents per passenger-kilometer. Fares on VIA Rail Canada averaged 68 cents per passenger-kilometer in 2022, and more than half of its costs are subsidized. People are simply not going to ride high-speed trains in large numbers if those trains cost far more than airlines, buses, or driving.

Amtrak’s only high-speed train, the Acela, collected fares of CN$1.80 per passenger-kilometer in 2022, and while Amtrak claims it covers its operating costs, all of its infrastructure costs are paid for by taxpayers. Amtrak brags that it carries more passengers in the Washington-New York corridor than the airlines, but cars and buses in this corridor carry well over 10 times as many intercity passengers as Amtrak.

The other argument rail advocates make is that high-speed trains will offer shorter downtown-to-downtown times than airlines in some markets. But most people neither work nor live downtown. Toronto and Montreal each have three commercial airports and residents are more likely to be near one of those airports than downtown.

Finally, rail proponents claim that high-speed trains will emit fewer greenhouse gases than cars or planes. But as usual they ignore the construction costs—that is, the billions of kilograms of greenhouse gases that would be emitted to build a high-speed rail line. It is likely that operational savings would never recover this cost, especially since it would be far less expensive to power jets and automobiles with biofuels.

One thing is certain: building high-speed or even high-frequency rail will require lots of workers. Far from being a benefit, Canada is currently suffering a labour shortage that is not expected to end soon. If the government decides to spend billions on a rail line, it will only make the costs of housing, cars, and just about everything else rise even faster.

China, Japan, and Spain have practically wrecked their economies by spending too much on high-speed trains. Just because other countries are foolishly building high-speed rail lines doesn’t mean Canada should do so any more than the country should spend billions on other obsolete technologies such as telegraphs, electric typewriters, or slide rules. Taxpayers should tell the government not to waste money on such boondoggles.

Randal O’Toole is a transportation policy analyst and author of Building 21^st Century Transit Systems for Canadian Cities. (20 pages) March 12,2024.