Ottawa’s Plastics Registry A Waste Of Time And Money

Todayville

Published

3 weeks ago

7 minute read

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Lee Harding

Lee Harding warns that Ottawa’s new Federal Plastics Registry (FPR) may be the most intrusive, bureaucratic burden yet. Targeting everything from electronics to fishing gear, the FPR requires businesses to track and report every gram of plastic they use, sell, or dispose of—even if plastic is incidental to their operations. Harding argues this isn’t about waste; it’s about control. And with phase one due in 2025, companies are already overwhelmed by confusion, cost, and compliance.

Businesses face sweeping reporting demands under the new Federal Plastics Registry

Canadian businesses already dealing with inflation, labour shortages and tariff uncertainties now face a new challenge courtesy of their own federal government: the Federal Plastics Registry (FPR). Manufacturers are probably using a different F-word than “federal” to describe it.

The registry is part of Ottawa’s push to monitor and eventually reduce plastic waste by collecting detailed data from companies that make, use or dispose of plastics.

Ottawa didn’t need new legislation to impose this. On Dec. 30, 2023, the federal government issued a notice of intent to create the registry under the 1999 Canadian Environmental Protection Act. A final notice followed on April 20, 2024.

According to the FPR website, companies, including resin manufacturers, plastic producers and service providers, must report annually to Environment Canada. Required disclosures include the quantity and types of plastics they manufacture, import and place on the market. They must also report how much plastic is collected and diverted, reused, repaired, remanufactured, refurbished, recycled, turned into chemicals, composted, incinerated or sent to landfill.

It ties into Canada’s larger Zero Plastic Waste agenda, a strategy to eliminate plastic waste by 2030.

Even more troubling is the breadth of plastic subcategories affected: electronic and electrical equipment, tires, vehicles, construction materials, agricultural and fishing gear, clothing, carpets and disposable items. In practice, this means that even businesses whose core products aren’t plastic—like farmers, retailers or construction firms—could be swept into the reporting requirements.

Plastics are in nearly everything, and now businesses must report everything about them, regardless of whether plastic is central to their business or incidental.

The FPR website says the goal is to collect “meaningful and standardized data, from across the country, on the flow of plastic from production to its end-of-life management.” That information will “inform and measure performance… of various measures that are part of Canada’s zero plastic waste agenda.” Its stated purpose is to “keep plastics in the economy and out of the environment.”

But here’s the problem: the government’s zero plastic waste goal is an illusion. It would require every plastic item to last forever or never exist in the first place, leaving businesses with an impossible task: stay profitable while meeting these demands.

To help navigate the maze, international consultancy Reclay StewardEdge recently held a webinar for Canadian companies. The discussion was revealing.

Reclay lead consultant Maanik Bagai said the FPR is without precedent. “It really surpasses whatever we have seen so far across the world. I would say it is unprecedented in nature. And obviously this is really going to be tricky,” he said.

Mike Cuma, Reclay’s senior manager of marketing and communications, added that the government’s online compliance instructions aren’t particularly helpful.

“There’s a really, really long list of kind of how to do it. It’s not particularly user-friendly in our experience,” Cuma said. “If you still have questions, if it still seems confusing, perhaps complex, we agree with you. That’s normal, I think, at this point—even just on the basic stuff of what needs to be reported, where, when, why. Don’t worry, you’re not alone in that feeling at all.”

The first reporting deadline, for 2024 data, is Sept. 29, 2025. Cuma warned that businesses should “start now”—and some “should maybe have started a couple months ago.”

Whether companies manage this in-house or outsource to consultants, they will incur significant costs in both time and money. September marks the first phase of four, with each future stage becoming more extensive and restrictive.

Plastics are petroleum products—and like oil and gas, they’re being demonized. The FPR looks less like environmental stewardship and more like an attempt to regulate and monitor a vast swath of the economy.

A worse possibility? That it’s a test run for a broader agenda—top-down oversight of every product from cradle to grave.

While seemingly unrelated, the FPR and other global initiatives reflect a growing trend toward comprehensive monitoring of products from creation to disposal.

This isn’t speculation. A May 2021 article on the World Economic Forum (WEF) website spotlighted a New York-based start-up, Eon, which created a platform to track fashion items through their life cycles. Called Connected Products, the platform gives each fashion item a digital birth certificate detailing when and where it was made, and from what. It then links to a digital twin and a digital passport that follows the product through use, reuse and disposal.

The goal, according to WEF, is to reduce textile waste and production, and thereby cut water usage. But the underlying principle—surveillance in the name of sustainability—has a much broader application.

Free markets and free people build prosperity, but some elites won’t leave us alone. They envision a future where everything is tracked, regulated and justified by the supposed need to “save the planet.”

So what if plastic eventually returns to the earth it came from? Its disposability is its virtue. And while we’re at it, let’s bury the Federal Plastics Registry and its misguided mandates with it—permanently.

Lee Harding is a research associate for the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

Up Next

Net Zero by 2050: There is no realistic path to affordable and reliable electricity

Don't Miss

Trump demands free passage for American ships through Panama, Suez

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

High grocery bills? Blame Ottawa, not Washington

Health / 1 hour ago

RFK calls out World Health Organization directly as a compromised body beholden to China

COVID-19 / 2 hours ago

Freedom Convoy trucker Harold Jonker acquitted of all charges

Business

High grocery bills? Blame Ottawa, not Washington

Published on May 21, 2025

Todayville

This article supplied by Troy Media.

By Sylvain Charlebois

Blaming the U.S. won’t cut it. Canada’s food inflation crisis is largely a result of Ottawa’s poor policy choices

It was expected, but still jarring. In April, food inflation in Canada surged to 3.8 per cent—a full 2.1 percentage points above the national inflation rate and nearly double the U.S. rate of two per cent. Once again, food is the primary driver behind headline inflation, amplifying affordability concerns across the country.

But this isn’t just a story of global disruption or seasonal cycles. It’s increasingly clear that Canada’s food inflation is largely homegrown—a direct result
of domestic policy missteps, particularly tariffs and protectionist procurement practices.

Since March, when both Canada and the United States introduced a new round of tariffs, the difference in outcomes has been striking. U.S. food inflation has continued to cool, while Canada’s has nearly tripled over the same period—a divergence that should raise serious red flags in two integrated economies.

Drill into the 3.8 per cent figure and the underlying pressure becomes obvious. Meat prices climbed 5.8 per cent year-over-year, with beef up a staggering 16.5 per cent. Egg prices rose 3.9 per cent, while fresh fruit and vegetable prices increased by five per cent and 3.7 per cent, respectively. These are not one-off anomalies—they reflect sustained cost increases made worse by awed policy.

Canada’s earlier decision to implement counter-tariffs— retaliatory taxes on U.S. imports in response to American trade moves— disrupted long-standing cross-border supply chains. To avoid higher import costs, grocers pivoted away from U.S. suppliers, particularly in fresh produce and frozen foods, and turned to costlier or less efficient alternatives. That shift is now showing up on Canadians’ grocery bills.

Fortunately, there’s been a course correction. According to Oxford Economics, a global forecasting and analysis firm, Prime Minister Mark Carney has quietly rolled back many of the counter-tariffs that had been inflating food costs. The move, while politically sensitive, was economically sound and long overdue. Early signs suggest that pressure on the supply chain is beginning to ease, and over time, this could help stabilize prices.

Still, Canada’s food inflation stands out. Among G7 nations, it now ranks second highest, behind only Japan. Food price increases in France, Germany, Italy, the U.K. and the U.S. remain well below ours.

Why? Because this isn’t just about external shocks. It’s about domestic choices. Tariffs, procurement rules and limited trade flexibility have shaped a uniquely Canadian inflation story. And unlike the U.S., Canada lacks the economic leverage to absorb policy mistakes without consequences.

That’s why Carney’s reversal offers more than short-term relief; it’s an opportunity to rethink our approach entirely. Symbols and slogans are no
substitute for sound policy. Ensuring access to affordable, nutritious food should be a national priority, pursued with pragmatism, not posturing.

Canadians should welcome the shift, but they also deserve honesty. This inflationary spiral didn’t just happen to us. We helped cause it. And it’s not
governments or grocery chains who shoulder the cost—it’s families at the checkout counter.

Moving forward, federal and provincial governments must coordinate more effectively, communicate with greater clarity, and stop masking economic
missteps with patriotic branding.

There’s nothing wrong with buying Canadian. But “maplewashing”—where companies overstate or exaggerate a product’s connection to Canada in order to appear more Canadian—risks distorting markets and eroding public trust. Grocers should not abuse consumer goodwill.

Ottawa’s slogans—“Elbows Up,” “Canada’s Not For Sale”—may have mobilized support during a volatile moment, but rhetoric has its limits. When it blinds policymakers to the real-world effects of their actions, it becomes dangerous.

Canada’s food inflation crisis didn’t have to unfold this way. Now that we have a chance to reset, let’s not waste it.

Dr. Sylvain Charlebois is a Canadian professor and researcher in food distribution and policy. He is senior director of the Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University and co-host of The Food Professor Podcast. He is frequently cited in the media for his insights on food prices, agricultural trends, and the global food supply chain.

Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country.

Business

Pension and Severance Estimate for 110 MP’s Who Resigned or Were Defeated in 2025 Federal Election

Published on May 21, 2025

Todayville

By Franco Terrazzano

Taxpayers Federation releases pension and severance figures for 2025 federal election

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation released its calculations of estimated pension and severance payments paid to the 110 members of Parliament who were either defeated in the federal election or did not seek re-election.

“Taxpayers shouldn’t feel too bad for the politicians who lost the election because they’ll be cashing big severance or pension cheques,” said Franco Terrazzano, CTF Federal Director. “Thanks to past pension reforms, taxpayers will not have to shoulder as much of the burden as they used to. But there’s more work to do to make politician pay affordable for taxpayers.”

Defeated or retiring MPs will collect about $5 million in annual pension payments, reaching a cumulative total of about $187 million by age 90. In addition, about $6.6 million in severance cheques will be issued to some former MPs.

Former prime minister Justin Trudeau will collect two taxpayer-funded pensions in retirement. Combined, those pensions total $8.4 million, according to CTF estimates. Trudeau is also taking a $104,900 severance payout because he did not run again as an MP.

The payouts for Trudeau’s MP pension will begin at $141,000 per year when he turns 55 years old. It will total an estimated $6.5 million should he live to the age of 90. The payouts for Trudeau’s prime minister pension will begin at $73,000 per year when he turns 67 years old. It will total an estimated $1.9 million should he live to the age of 90.

“Taxpayers need to see leadership at the top and that means reforming pensions and ending the pay raises MPs take every year,” Terrazzano said. “A prime minister already takes millions through their first pension, they shouldn’t be billing taxpayers more for their second pension.

“The government must end the second pension for all future prime ministers.”

There are 13 former MPs that will collect more than $100,000-plus a year in pension income. The pension and severance calculations for each defeated or retired MP can be found here.

Some notable severance / pensions

Name Party Years as MP Severance Annual Starting Pension Pension to Age 90

Bergeron, Stéphane BQ 17.6 $ 99,000.00 $ 4,440,000.00

Boissonnault, Randy LPC 7.6 $ 44,200.00 $ 53,000.00 $ 2,775,000.00

Dreeshen, Earl CPC 16.6 $ $ 95,000.00 $ 1,938,000.00

Mendicino, Marco * LPC 9.4 $ 66,000.00 $ 3,586,000.00

O’Regan, Seamus LPC 9.5 $ 104,900.00 $ 75,000.00 $ 3,927,000.00

Poilievre, Pierre ** CPC 20.8 $ 136,000.00 $ 7,087,000.00

Singh, Jagmeet NDP 6.2 $ 140,300.00 $ 45,000.00 $ 2,694,000.00

Trudeau, Justin *** LPC 16.6 $ 104,900.00 $ 141,000.00 $ 8,400,000.00

* Marco Mendicino resigned as an MP on March 14th, 2025

** Pierre Poilievre announced that he would not take a severance