UN plastics plans are unscientific and unrealistic

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

Related Topics:#CatherineSwift #CCMBC #StevenGuilbeault #UNPlasticsBan

Up Next

Market Realities Are Throwing Wrench In Biden’s Green Energy Dreams

Don't Miss

Trump campaign says he will pardon Jan. 6 prisoners on ‘case-by-case basis’ if re-elected

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

Alberta judge sides with LGBT activists, allows ‘gender transitions’ for kids to continue

Alberta / 7 hours ago

Why the West’s separatists could be just as big a threat as Quebec’s

Business / 9 hours ago

Massive government child-care plan wreaking havoc across Ontario

Business

Massive government child-care plan wreaking havoc across Ontario

Published on June 30, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Matthew Lau

It’s now more than four years since the federal Liberal government pledged $30 billion in spending over five years for $10-per-day national child care, and more than three years since Ontario’s Progressive Conservative government signed a $13.2 billion deal with the federal government to deliver this child-care plan.

Not surprisingly, with massive government funding came massive government control. While demand for child care has increased due to the government subsidies and lower out-of-pocket costs for parents, the plan significantly restricts how child-care centres operate (including what items participating centres may purchase), and crucially, caps the proportion of government funds available to private for-profit providers.

What have families and taxpayers got for this enormous government effort? Widespread child-care shortages across Ontario.

For example, according to the City of Ottawa, the number of children (aged 0 to 5 years) on child-care waitlists has ballooned by more than 300 per cent since 2019, there are significant disparities in affordable child-care access “with nearly half of neighbourhoods underserved, and limited access in suburban and rural areas,” and families face “significantly higher” costs for before-and-after-school care for school-age children.

In addition, Ottawa families find the system “complex and difficult to navigate” and “fewer child care options exist for children with special needs.” And while 42 per cent of surveyed parents need flexible child care (weekends, evenings, part-time care), only one per cent of child-care centres offer these flexible options. These are clearly not encouraging statistics, and show that a government-knows-best approach does not properly anticipate the diverse needs of diverse families.

Moreover, according to the Peel Region’s 2025 pre-budget submission to the federal government (essentially, a list of asks and recommendations), it “has maximized its for-profit allocation, leaving 1,460 for-profit spaces on a waitlist.” In other words, families can’t access $10-per-day child care—the central promise of the plan—because the government has capped the number of for-profit centres.

Similarly, according to Halton Region’s pre-budget submission to the provincial government, “no additional families can be supported with affordable child care” because, under current provincial rules, government funding can only be used to reduce child-care fees for families already in the program.

And according to a March 2025 Oxford County report, the municipality is experiencing a shortage of child-care staff and access challenges for low-income families and children with special needs. The report includes a grim bureaucratic predication that “provincial expansion targets do not reflect anticipated child care demand.”

Child-care access is also a problem provincewide. In Stratford, which has a population of roughly 33,000, the municipal government reports that more than 1,000 children are on a child-care waitlist. Similarly in Port Colborne (population 20,000), the city’s chief administrative officer told city council in April 2025 there were almost 500 children on daycare waitlists at the beginning of the school term. As of the end of last year, Guelph and Wellington County reportedly had a total of 2,569 full-day child-care spaces for children up to age four, versus a waitlist of 4,559 children—in other words, nearly two times as many children on a waitlist compared to the number of child-care spaces.

More examples. In Prince Edward County, population around 26,000, there are more than 400 children waitlisted for licensed daycare. In Kawartha Lakes and Haliburton County, the child-care waitlist is about 1,500 children long and the average wait time is four years. And in St. Mary’s, there are more than 600 children waitlisted for child care, but in recent years town staff have only been able to move 25 to 30 children off the wait list annually.

The numbers speak for themselves. Massive government spending and control over child care has created havoc for Ontario families and made child-care access worse. This cannot be a surprise. Quebec’s child-care system has been largely government controlled for decades, with poor results. Why would Ontario be any different? And how long will Premier Ford allow this debacle to continue before he asks the new prime minister to rethink the child-care policy of his predecessor?

Matthew Lau

Adjunct Scholar, Fraser Institute

Business

Canada Caves: Carney ditches digital services tax after criticism from Trump

Published on June 30, 2025

Todayville

From The Center Square

By Brett Rowland

Canada caved to President Donald Trump demands by pulling its digital services tax hours before it was to go into effect on Monday.

Trump said Friday that he was ending all trade talks with Canada over the digital services tax, which he called a direct attack on the U.S. and American tech firms. The DST required foreign and domestic businesses to pay taxes on some revenue earned from engaging with online users in Canada.

“Based on this egregious Tax, we are hereby terminating ALL discussions on Trade with Canada, effective immediately,” the president said. “We will let Canada know the Tariff that they will be paying to do business with the United States of America within the next seven day period.”

By Sunday, Canada relented in an effort to resume trade talks with the U.S., it’s largest trading partner.

“To support those negotiations, the Minister of Finance and National Revenue, the Honourable François-Philippe Champagne, announced today that Canada would rescind the Digital Services Tax (DST) in anticipation of a mutually beneficial comprehensive trade arrangement with the United States,” according to a statement from Canada’s Department of Finance.

Canada’s Department of Finance said that Prime Minister Mark Carney and Trump agreed to resume negotiations, aiming to reach a deal by July 21.

U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said Monday that the digital services tax would hurt the U.S.

“Thank you Canada for removing your Digital Services Tax which was intended to stifle American innovation and would have been a deal breaker for any trade deal with America,” he wrote on X.

Earlier this month, the two nations seemed close to striking a deal.

Trump said he and Carney had different concepts for trade between the two neighboring countries during a meeting at the G7 Summit in Kananaskis, in the Canadian Rockies.

Asked what was holding up a trade deal between the two nations at that time, Trump said they had different concepts for what that would look like.

“It’s not so much holding up, I think we have different concepts, I have a tariff concept, Mark has a different concept, which is something that some people like, but we’re going to see if we can get to the bottom of it today.”

Shortly after taking office in January, Trump hit Canada and Mexico with 25% tariffs for allowing fentanyl and migrants to cross their borders into the U.S. Trump later applied those 25% tariffs only to goods that fall outside the free-trade agreement between the three nations, called the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement.

Trump put a 10% tariff on non-USMCA compliant potash and energy products. A 50% tariff on aluminum and steel imports from all countries into the U.S. has been in effect since June 4. Trump also put a 25% tariff on all cars and trucks not built in the U.S.

Economists, businesses and some publicly traded companies have warned that tariffs could raise prices on a wide range of consumer products.

Trump has said he wants to use tariffs to restore manufacturing jobs lost to lower-wage countries in decades past, shift the tax burden away from U.S. families, and pay down the national debt.

A tariff is a tax on imported goods paid by the person or company that imports them. The importer can absorb the cost of the tariffs or try to pass the cost on to consumers through higher prices.

Trump’s tariffs give U.S.-produced goods a price advantage over imported goods, generating revenue for the federal government.