Evidence of meeting #17 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was million.
A video is available from Parliament.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Matt Jeneroux Conservative Edmonton Riverbend, AB
Thank you, Minister, for joining us.
Can you confirm that you're adding plastics to the toxic substance list?
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Jonathan Wilkinson Liberal North Vancouver, BC
As you are aware, a scientific exercise was done with respect to plastics. The finding was that plastics are harmful in the environment.
We have moved forward with a comprehensive approach to addressing those, including a ban on specific items, single-use plastic items, but more generally around a focus on keeping plastics in the economy. That is the focus of the work we are doing. I think Canadians are very much ahead of us on this in terms of ensuring that plastics are managed in a thoughtful way.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Jonathan Wilkinson Liberal North Vancouver, BC
Well, plastics are not toxic in the normal sense of the word that people use pejoratively, and I don't think anybody says they are.
There is a range of plastics, the vast majority of which we need to ensure that we are keeping in the economy and that they don't leak out into the environment. That means higher recycling rates, better use of recycling content and working with people who produce plastic packaging to ensure they're doing it in a way that enhances recyclability. That's exactly what we're doing. We're working very closely with the provinces and territories on that work.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Matt Jeneroux Conservative Edmonton Riverbend, AB
If these aren't toxic, why are we adding them to the toxic substances list?
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I imagine there's some money being spent on this initiative to reduce plastics—
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Matt Jeneroux Conservative Edmonton Riverbend, AB
I imagine Mr. Longfield is a little uneasy with the questions, but that's fine. The minister's doing okay. He can handle himself. He's been at committee lots of times before.
Back to the question, Minister, then why are we adding them to the toxic substances list?
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Jonathan Wilkinson Liberal North Vancouver, BC
I'm saying that the Canadian Environmental Protection Act is the tool we use, as a government, and as all governments in Canada, to ensure we are appropriately managing the way we deal with environmental issues. Certainly we found through the scientific research that was conducted that plastics are harmful in the environment and we need a plan to ensure that doesn't continue to happen.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Matt Jeneroux Conservative Edmonton Riverbend, AB
Minister, on what date did you contact your counterpart in the U.S. to advise them that it would be a poor decision to cancel one of the most environmentally friendly pipelines in the world, Keystone XL?
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Jonathan Wilkinson Liberal North Vancouver, BC
As you know, the Government of Canada advocated significantly to the new U.S. administration that we believe the Keystone pipeline should proceed, and certainly those discussions took place at a whole range of levels.
I have a hard time understanding how that relates to the supplementary (C) for Environment Canada, but certainly that was the conversation that took place.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Matt Jeneroux Conservative Edmonton Riverbend, AB
Minister, what was the date, though? That's what I'm curious about.
What we have on record is that the first time you spoke with the special envoy to the president, John Kerry, was February 25, 2021. That's well over a month after the cancellation of Keystone XL.
Regarding one of the most environmentally friendly pipelines that exist between two countries that have a friendly relationship, you would think the Minister of the Environment would have made a call earlier than that to advocate on behalf of the Keystone XL pipeline. Can you clarify that's what you did?
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Schiefke Liberal Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC
Mr. Chair, on a point of order, can Mr. Jeneroux in his question perhaps point to the supplementary estimates to share how this relates to the supplementary estimates? I fail to see how this relates to the supplementary estimates.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Mr. Jeneroux, it's a fair comment. You're talking about decisions being made in the United States flowing from an election platform in that country. I have to say that Mr. Schiefke has a point.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Matt Jeneroux Conservative Edmonton Riverbend, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr. Schiefke, who I will also add to Mr. Longfield as feeling uncomfortable about the questions.
However, Mr. Wilkinson is doing well. He's answering his questions. He has come here before. He has been asked these tough questions and he has handled them before. I would point to some of the other questions by the other members that also weren't in relation to the supplementary estimates (C), such as in regard to downtown parks in Toronto.
It's a fair point. If the minister does not want to answer the question when it comes to when his first conversation was with the special envoy to the president, Mr. John Kerry, then it's up to him whether he wants to do that.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Matt Jeneroux Conservative Edmonton Riverbend, AB
Mr. Chair, I'm just looking for the date when he first advocated for the Keystone pipeline.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
Jonathan Wilkinson Liberal North Vancouver, BC
I would just say that I'm here to talk about the supplementary estimates (C). I don't know how this has any relation to the supplementary estimates (C), but as I say, the Government of Canada has advocated to a range of different folks within the Government of the United States, and certainly about this issue. At the end of the day, it was an election platform commitment that the President of the United States made, and he acted upon it against the advice that we were providing him.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Mr. Jeneroux, I've tried to take into account the points of order, and so on. I think your time is up.
We'll go to Mr. Longfield for five minutes.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Welcome back, Minister. It's always great to have you at our committee where we can talk about the estimates.
Guelph is home to Canada's food university, focusing on a one health approach with healthy people, a healthy planet and healthy animals, to feed the planet with healthy plants and animals.
Vote 10c shows us a transfer to the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food. Agriculture is a committee that I also sat on last term, so it's interesting to see $375,000 going towards agriculture.
Could you comment on how this funding is being used to promote sustainable agriculture practices?
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
Jonathan Wilkinson Liberal North Vancouver, BC
That's obviously a very important question.
Let me start by saying that the University of Guelph, which I know you are very fond of, is a terrific institution and has been a very valued scientific partner. In fact, I think over $1 million in grants and contributions has gone to the University of Guelph since 2015 to look at things like phosphorus loads in Lake Simcoe.
The funding you referenced will support the cost of incremental analytical work done by the Smart Prosperity Institute and the University of Ottawa. It will explore avenues to decarbonize the agriculture sector and how non-regulatory policy instruments can be developed and used in the Canadian context to identify additional options for policies and programs to further promote clean growth and innovation in the ag and the agri-food sectors. These are important areas of emissions within the economy. They're also very important from an economic perspective in terms of a driver of growth, and we want to ensure that we're working with the agriculture community to move forward.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal