MINUTES - PUBLIC – ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE COMMITTEE (CELCC)
Read full translation
Regulation governing single-use plastics - Recommendation
Chantal Marcotte, Director of the Service de l’eau et des matières résiduelles (SEMR), presented the regulations governing single-use plastics. She was accompanied by Annie-France Major, responsible for the residual materials management plan. The objective of the presentation was to obtain recommendations regarding the regulations to be developed to govern single-use plastics.
The current situation, analyzed scenarios, desired outcome, timeline, and proposed recommendations were presented. At the heart of the analyzed scenarios, the three municipal regulation models in Quebec were detailed:
- Banning certain single-use items;
- Obligation to have reusable alternatives;
- Eco-contribution.
The target for adopting a bylaw banning certain single-use plastics is 2025, followed by a transition and support period in 2026. In 2025, in-depth analyses will be conducted on certain subjects (subsidy program, membership option, etc.). Other steps will follow. The Department read the wording of the 4 proposed recommendations before the discussion period.
Discussion Period
General Comments We thank Chantal Marcotte for the presentation and are happy to see the progress of the proposals in the Plan de gestion des matières résiduelles (PGMR), including those for plastic reduction. The Department's proactivity in this file is highlighted.
Regulatory Context Contextually, we wonder if having adopted the PGMR before the implementation of the federal ban regulation, as well as the novelty regarding residual materials management by Quebec, has an impact and if it is consistent with what the City wants to do and the desired regulation. We wonder if the two-tier regulation makes everything more cumbersome. The Department indicates that the federal regulation is under appeal. It was adopted in several phases and is still in force. One of the problems with this federal regulation is that it is difficult to implement because there is no field team to oversee it. The City of Gatineau's proposal at the regulatory level would govern everything on our territory. For the PGMR team, it is a lever to achieve our objectives in residual materials management. The goal is to go further. Note that at the provincial level, there is also the regulation on the modernization of selective collection. Éco-entreprise reimburses collection costs but does not act on the marketing of plastic, for example. The City could therefore, through its regulation, complete the whole thing by better controlling which materials are generated on the territory and what is permitted and prohibited in order to improve and work in complementarity. A bill to amend the Loi sur la qualité de l’environnement (LQE) is planned at the provincial level. The timeline and strategy are unknown, and it is difficult to say if there will one day be a regulation concerning plastic at the provincial level. The City wishes to move forward.
Steps A clarification is requested regarding the proposed recommendations. Is it a large umbrella recommendation to position oneself in favor of each recommendation presented, one at a time? To this question, the Department wishes for the Commission to be able to position itself on each of the 4 proposed recommendations presented.
Concern regarding the federal government Concern is raised regarding the possibility of the rejection of the federal regulation currently under appeal and its possible impact on the desired regulation in Gatineau. The Department specifies that what is being contested at the federal level is the fact that this regulation should not be under federal jurisdiction because, for the contesting parties, it would not be part of its competencies. The City, however, has the right and competence to put in place a regulation and to enforce it.
Impact of decisions Concerns are also raised regarding these major decisions to be taken at the end of the mandate and the feasibility of applying everything to major local players such as grocery stores, restaurants, etc. We understand that support and training are planned; however, it will most likely be difficult to make it simple to apply. People will have difficulty adopting this regulation.
Diversification of revenue It is mentioned that it would be interesting to look at the diversification of revenue in connection with the study of eco-distributions sooner rather than later. Is it possible to bring this step closer in the timeline? The Department will analyze the feasibility; however, it is a professional service requiring contractual procedures, and it will be difficult to move it forward.
Implementation We wish to know if the SEMR has enough staff to deploy a regulation in this matter. The Department already has the teams to implement such a regulation since this step was already planned in the PGMR. It is planned to carry out proactive tours including awareness and communication with businesses to facilitate understanding and to recommend alternatives and best practices. The regulatory lever will provide an incentive for those who have not reached this stage and facilitate compliance with the new requirements that would be identified.
Explanations are requested regarding the means and feasibility of overseeing the application of the regulation at the level of large chains that are linked to corporate decisions. The Department specifies that some large chains have already requested documentation regarding the PGMR in order to send it for information to head offices with the goal of complying with it. A dialogue is underway. The Department knows that this will be an issue and that the timeline will have to be realistic to better support them in this change. We give the example of Terrebonne where the major players complied with their ambitious regulation.
Clarifications – specific products A member wishes to obtain clarifications regarding certain products in connection with the proposed regulation: • Styrofoam for fish and meat: We wish to know if there is a fee and why they are not targeted at the present time. The Department specifies wanting to speak with MAPAQ first and to leave itself a little time before including them based on this analysis. • Water bottles: Given that there is already a fee for water bottles, why not target all liquid bottles? The Department indicates that at the provincial level, it is a deposit for water bottles and ready-to-drink containers of 100 ml and more. At the level of the fee, it is the organization that manages the end-of-life. At the level of the eco-contribution, it is, however, a potential revenue collection by the City. Regarding the specific question of water bottles versus other bottles, the Department specifies that it is an example and that various bottles with different materials will be analyzed. The bottle as an eco-contribution principle also joins the water management plan. More products will be targeted. • Washable dishware in the dining room: We are concerned about the impact on merchants and the means they will take to compensate for the purchase of this dishware. Will the bill be redistributed to customers? We wonder if comments regarding costs had been mentioned during the consultations? The Department indicates that the measure for merchants was well accepted, but the issues or obstacles were: additional expenses (acquiring the dishware, changing workspaces, expanding, etc.). The City wishes to analyze the possibility of putting in place a subsidy program to support merchants in this sense. It is, however, possible that like all business expenses, a portion of the costs will also be distributed to customers.
Findings Findings are shared and exchanges follow. We emphasize that we are collectively at this stage, the banning of plastic. If predictability is well established regarding the use of reusable dishware in commerce, it should be possible. There would possibly be issues regarding reduction at the source. A member wishes to specify that it was a reform and not a responsibility of the producers, which led eco-enterprises and packaging producers to withdraw from the responsibility of managing waste in nature, which is a shame. This situation is not resolved.
Reduction at the source A member indicates that the CREDDO has a budget allowing for the support of businesses. An activity report was submitted to the City of Gatineau. In one year, 264 organizations (businesses or chains) were reached. It is a lot of work; the rate of adherence to ecological alternatives is limited. Merchants live another reality where the "end of the month" vision is important. The CREDDO has learned from this and can share best practices and exchanges with the City of Gatineau teams.
Addition of an aspect: “Business to business” An aspect that we do not cover by the regulation and that would deserve to be worked on is the reduction at the source in connection with the "Business to business" concept. An example is the packaging of sheets and linens in the hotel sector, a large generator of single-use plastic that could be targeted. We must continue to believe in it even if it is a change of habit.
Predictability We recommend always giving predictability to merchants, communicating well, and being identified upstream. Providing merchants with tools or examples of suppliers who can support them is also a good practice. The CREDDO proposes to help in this sense.
An elected member wishes for the CREDDO experience to be added to the documents transmitted to the municipal council, particularly in connection with the lessons learned.
Regulatory Lever 1 – Implementation Deadlines The presidency wishes to know the estimated time allowing for the implementation of the regulatory lever of recommendation proposal 1. The Department responds that it is ready to move forward with this regulation, but that the next step is to go to the plenary committee; the date must be agreed upon and it is the limiting factor (according to the timelines). If we go quickly, in the fall of 2025, we would be able to adopt a bylaw. Once this step has been done, it will be simpler to move forward. Regarding the principle and project of eco-contribution, this will take more time. The presidency emphasizes that we must analyze everything well and be aware that the City of Gatineau has more than 3,000 merchants, which will imply several hours of analysis. It will be longer and more tedious.
Concerns and issues An elected member mentions that nearly 1,300 businesses would be affected by the applicable regulation. Although a first survey was done, it would be profitable to do a tour upstream of the businesses and survey them in relation to each of these regulations. A round of discussions would be important with the concerned parties acting as preliminary discussion and consultation. We thank the teams for the ICI (industries, businesses, and institutions) pilot project that took place. Support is a facilitating measure to offer. We indicate a concern regarding arriving immediately with a regulation without going through the stage of a pilot project. We also indicate the fact that the City is losing many merchants lately due to the economy and that we must do more so that the measure and regulatory lever are well received and put in place. A proposal is that the message should be more focused on “be the first to make the change and we will help you,” of the incentive type.
The Department explains that initially, the reason why it was desired to go towards the governing of plastics was linked to the fact that the arrival of composting and recycling collection measures in the ICI affected the same clientele and that it would be judicious that these same teams could add this element (plastic ban) during their tour instead of going by phase. However, in connection with the previous comment, we must indeed not rule out the possibility of continuing the preliminary consultation with the actors in the field and returning later with the question of the plastic ban since the initial consultative stage reached fewer people than expected. The Department explains that the response rate to the initial survey of merchants was low, but that a workshop had taken place with merchant associations to discuss levers and obstacles. The proposal stems from the discussions that took place with them. The timeline was built in this sense. During the business tour, we could, however, collect other data in connection with the impacts that will arise from the other regulatory aspects and recommendations.
A member reiterates that the collection of recycling and composting in the ICI is good news; these are good choices for the environment and for the wallet. However, the plastic ban will affect businesses and will be a difficult decision even if the regulation will be necessary. If we combine these two actions, the bad news will color the good news; it is an issue that must be considered.
RECOMMENDATION CELCC-2025-02
The Commission on the Environment and Climate Change, during the ordinary session of June 19, 2025, recommends that the municipal council mandate the Service de l’eau et des matières résiduelles and the Service des affaires juridiques to develop a bylaw aimed at: • banning certain single-use plastic items (plastic utensils, plastic straws, plastic shopping bags given at the checkout, plastic stir sticks, waxed food sheets, and plastic plates); • banning certain #6 plastic items (including Styrofoam), including trays (except meat and fish), containers, bowls, lids, glasses, and cups. Proposed by Simon Nadeau, Seconded by Réal Lalande. Adopted.
General Comments The presidency emphasizes that the issue of this recommendation is to know if we move forward or if the fall timeline is too tight. On this subject, an elected member repositions the role of the Commission, which is to recommend to the municipal council an orientation or an action (acceptable or not). The timeline specifically submitted by the Department will be presented to the municipal council, which will have to decide by a decision. A clarification question is asked about the proposal of items for the ban. Now that the items for the most part go to recycling, even if they do not have outlets, is the ban in connection with the totality of all that? The Department specifies that their wish is reduction at the source and to offer real alternatives.
RECOMMENDATION CELCC-2025-03
The Commission on the Environment and Climate Change, during the ordinary session of June 19, 2025, recommends that the municipal council mandate the Service de l’eau et des matières résiduelles and the Service des affaires juridiques to develop a bylaw aimed at obliging merchants to have washable dishware when there is consumption of food on-site, and to analyze the possibility of implementing an associated subsidy program. Proposed by Benoit Delage, Seconded by Réal Lalande. Adopted.
General Comments The presidency wishes to validate the timeline linked to this recommendation. It is indicated that it would go to 2027, but that this component must be included in the regulation on the plastic ban. Furthermore, while the tour of merchants takes place, the Department could already start discussing it. The timeline is longer and it gives predictability to stakeholders.
A member raises a concern in connection with subsidy programs to support businesses. Is there a link with the subsidy program that was presented by the Service de la transition écologique and which concerned eco-gestures? The STÉ responds that everything is already included in the analysis of eco-gestures and that this element is inscribed, moreover, within the recommendation that is adopted.
RECOMMENDATION CELCC-2025-04
The Commission on the Environment and Climate Change, during the ordinary session of June 19, 2025, recommends that the municipal council mandate the Service de l’eau et des matières résiduelles and the Service des affaires juridiques to study the possibility of prohibiting merchants from offering by default to customers, with their takeout or on-site consumption order, certain single-use items as well as the possibility of banning other single-use plastics, favoring their reusable alternatives, and modifying the regulation in this sense. Proposed by Benoit Delage, Seconded by Simon Nadeau. Adopted.
General Comments It is specified that the timeline is also medium-term. The Department explains that one must first study the way of doing things beforehand. To the question if the budget is already there, it is answered that yes, it is part of the annual budget of the PGMR.
RECOMMENDATION CELCC-2025-05
The Commission on the Environment and Climate Change, during the ordinary session of June 19, 2025, recommends that the municipal council mandate the Service de l’eau et des matières résiduelles to evaluate the impacts and resources necessary for the implementation of an eco-contribution, notably on water bottles, and to propose recommendations to the municipal council. Proposed by Benoit Delage, Seconded by Anik Des Marais. Adopted.
General Comments To the question if the budget is part of the plan to do these actions, the Department confirms it. It is asked to ensure that we look at the possibility of revenue diversification with the finance committee. The Department explains that the elements are already analyzed by the Service des finances. Work is underway at the level of eco-fiscality.