Environment Committee on April 28th, 2021

[Norman Lee]

Yes, I think it would. Certainly provincially it would help, and federally as well. It would help especially producers and organizations like the members that Mr. Goetz represents. They need scale to achieve some of their objectives and to pay for the investments they would have to make.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We'll have to stop there.

I believe the next questioner is Mr. Jeneroux. Go ahead for five minutes, please.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

A number of my questions are for Minister Savage, going back to some of the testimony she gave a while back.

Based on some of that testimony, I would tend to think the Government of Alberta wasn't necessarily consulted on this ban. However, if you were consulted, were the recommendations provided from the provincial government to the federal government followed?

[Sonya Savage]

To start with, we're concerned with the overreach—the overextension of the federal government's reach into provincial jurisdiction, which is in the area of waste management—by designating plastics as a toxic substance. It really goes right to the heart of what is provincial jurisdiction.

The recently introduced Bill C-28 changes don't change the position that the provinces have. I think this position is shared by a number of other provinces. My colleague, Minister Nixon, our environment minister, has signed a joint letter with his colleagues from Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec, addressing some of those concerns.

Fundamentally, provinces are the main jurisdiction, the main actors, in any sort of plastics product management. It's within provincial jurisdiction that each of our provinces is taking action to reduce plastic waste. We all are taking this seriously and taking steps to reduce the waste. We don't want to see the federal government duplicating the outcomes of provincial programs. We want to continue working with the federal government, but the current proposed approach to plastic products interferes with the outcomes in our programs here in our provinces.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Right. You kind of answered my second question, which I was going to tie in to some of Minister Nixon's letter with his colleagues.

Maybe we could talk about what you just hit on in your testimony. The federal announcement on plastics was made, from my recollection, the day after Alberta announced its plan to grow the economy by becoming a recycling hub. Can you tell us again how the government's plastics ban proposal would affect the Alberta economy, and in particular how it would impact jobs that could be lost in the province?

[Sonya Savage]

I guess there are two areas there, really, that it would impact. That's with our petrochemical sector and with our goal to become a global centre for a plastics circular economy. It impacts both areas. Both of those areas are key factors in our natural gas strategy, which is part of our diversification strategy in Alberta and our efforts for economic recovery post-pandemic. It really does strike at what we're trying to do in Alberta to diversify and to recover.

From the petrochemical perspective alone, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, this is potentially a $30-billion industry by 2030. We know that the global demand for petrochemicals is growing and companies are looking to invest. They have billions of dollars to invest. We believe this could drive investment away from Canada into other jurisdictions. Companies will look for jurisdictions that are the most competitive and that are not hostile to the business the company is trying to do. We're concerned that it will drive that investment to jurisdictions that don't have the same high standards we have here in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It will drive it to jurisdictions that aren't trying to establish a circular economy.

We see that as being really concerning with respect to what we're trying to do to diversify our economy and attract investment. The same goes for our efforts to set up a circular economy and become a North American centre of excellence. There is a huge opportunity there as well to reuse the plastic waste.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Can I sneak one last one in, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We're pretty much out of time. You can sneak in a comment, maybe.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Okay. I'll ask a “yes or no” question, then, Mr. Chair, if that's fine with you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay. Ask a yes or no question. I hate to tell the minister from Alberta that she has to limit herself to “yes” or “no”, but anyway, go ahead.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Right. I'll do my best.

Would you agree that the label of “toxic” under the CEPA is unnecessary?

[Sonya Savage]

It's absolutely unnecessary.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

That sounds like agreement to me.

We'll go to Mr. Bittle now.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Since Mr. Jeneroux brought up the subject of toxic substances, I'll speak about another toxic substance.

Minister Savage, this isn't a trick question, because I enjoy the products myself. Have you ever had a soft drink or a beer?

[Sonya Savage]

Have I ever had a soft drink or a beer? Yes.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

In those products—again, products that I enjoy and my doctor would probably tell me to drink less of—there is a toxic product under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, called carbon dioxide. It's toxic.

I see that you're a member from the Calgary area, and I notice that there are a lot of breweries in the Calgary area. Has the toxic designation of carbon dioxide impacted the beverage industry in Alberta? It hasn't seemed to in Ontario, but I'm curious as to whether it has impacted the beverage industry in Alberta.

[Sonya Savage]

I think you'd probably have to ask the beverage industry that question. I know I—

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

As a member for Calgary.... I'm looking at the Calgary beer map, and I see dozens of breweries that have popped up in the Calgary area. Despite this being a toxic substance within a beverage that we consume, isn't it fair to say that consumers know that carbon dioxide in a beer or a soft drink is safe compared to if I filled this room up with carbon dioxide—then it's toxic? Isn't that the same with plastic?

I appreciate the talking points—I'm a politician myself—but isn't it fair to say that, within the definition of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, plastic is a toxic substance similar to carbon dioxide, but that consumers and industry are smart enough to know the difference?

[Sonya Savage]

I think you're comparing apples to oranges here, and your analogy completely fails.

What we're dealing with here is trying to attract international investment into a sector that those companies can invest in anywhere in the world. The reputational harm that they look at with regard to labelling plastics as toxic.... Those companies can invest anywhere on the planet, so I think you're trying to compare apples to oranges.

What we're dealing with here is international investment that can pick and choose jurisdictions to invest in. What we're going to do and what we're going see is that investment going to other places in the world and not to Canada, certainly not to Alberta, where we're trying to diversify our economy and attract new investment outside of oil and gas. We're able to do that in a way that has a low carbon footprint and is at the highest environmental standards. That investment is going to go somewhere else, so it's an entirely different analogy from beer and soft drinks and consumer choice.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

I appreciate that, Minister.

I will go to Ms. Wallis and Ms. Wirsig.

Am I comparing apples to oranges? I wonder if you can respond to the minister, because we've heard these talking points from the plastics industry a lot.

Are consumers and sophisticated industry, from your standpoint, able to deal with this designation? It seems that the plastics industry is suggesting that we're not smart enough to understand, even though we drink products, consume products and have products in our home that are labelled “toxic”?

[Ashley Wallis]

I'll jump in first, if that's okay.

I agree. I think Canadians are smart enough to be able to understand this nuance. I also think that industry is smart enough to be able to understand this nuance. Industry has told us about the huge innovative capacity it has.

We also know, as I mentioned earlier, that rules like this are coming down the pipe in numerous jurisdictions around the world, so this isn't going to be Canada as a lone actor while every other place in the world is super excited to increase plastic production and use. Plastic is on its way out, and Canada really needs to get in front of a circular economy that is focused on using plastic when absolutely necessary and otherwise transitioning to other materials.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Ms. Wirsig, please.

[Karen Wirsig]

I think you won't be surprising, shocking or scaring any Canadian when you tell them that plastic is toxic to the environment. They've been telling us that; they've been telling pollsters that, and they've been telling politicians that. It is the most evident thing that we can say about plastic right now, that plastic pollution is toxic to the environment. This is not something that will surprise anybody.

The toxic label under CEPA is a legal question, and it's not going to be labelled on any materials unless the federal government ever chose to do that, which we don't believe is in the plan.

It's a necessary step to make the regulations that Canadians are asking for, and it is perhaps a signal to investors. Hopefully, as we've mentioned before, the green transition will also be a signal to investors to have clean, carbon-free production and manufacturing in Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

We're going to the third round.

I had Mr. Albas, but he switched with Mr. Jeneroux, so I don't know if it's Mr. Albas or Mr. Jeneroux who wants to speak. Maybe you could inform me.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

If you wouldn't mind, Mr. Chair, I'll start and then I'll pass it over to Mr. Albas.