Evidence of meeting #21 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was plastics.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Isabelle Des Chênes  Executive Vice-President, Chemistry Industry Association of Canada
Jean-Robert Lessard  Special Adviser, Public and Government Relations, Groupe Robert Inc.
Logan Caragata  Director, Federal Government Affairs and Policy, Access Division, Hoffmann-La Roche Limited
Fanny Sie  Strategic Healthcare Partner, Artificial Intelligence and Digital Health , Hoffmann-La Roche Limited
Daniel Dagenais  Vice-President, Operations, Montreal Port Authority

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

Earl Dreeshen Conservative Red Deer—Mountain View, AB

Okay. Could you expand on that?

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

Earl Dreeshen Conservative Red Deer—Mountain View, AB

Certainly, and that's great.

I'm just wondering, still on the propane that is being used, there will be a carbon tax paid on the propane.

Is that not correct?

3:55 p.m.

Executive Vice-President, Chemistry Industry Association of Canada

Isabelle Des Chênes

Not just yet.

There is a carbon tax paid on the energy inputs, and because propane is gaseous, it's not yet part of the tax package. However, as part of the clean fuel standard, once it moves away from the liquid gases, it will then start looking at gaseous or solid gases, and that's where the taxes will be in 2023.

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

Earl Dreeshen Conservative Red Deer—Mountain View, AB

Thank you.

I guess that's my point, because, of course, as a farmer, I am paying a carbon tax on the propane I am using.

To go back to one of the comments earlier about transportation and everything and how Canadians are going to end up paying more for food, quite frankly, we had better understand that it's the distribution costs, the processing costs, and some of the labour costs associated with some of the more refined ones that are bringing up that cost of food. It's not money that's going to the farmers. I just wanted to make that particular point.

With regard to one last point, if I could speak with the Montreal Port Authority, I know there are millions of tonnes of fuel—oil and gas—that are coming in through the Montreal port. If there were a future government that chose to disrupt tanker traffic in the St. Lawrence, how much damage could that do to the port of Montreal?

3:55 p.m.

Vice-President, Operations, Montreal Port Authority

Daniel Dagenais

Well, Montreal has a long history with the petrochemical industry. You may or may not know this, but there used to be at least five refineries on the Island of Montreal. Now there is only one, operated by Suncor. There is an extensive tank farm that is actually the distribution hub for all of eastern Canada and part of the New England area as well. Petroleum products, or liquid bulk, represent about 16 million tonnes out of the 40 million tonnes that will be handled at the port on an annual basis. It is a substantial amount of traffic.

Don't forget, also, that there's another refinery in the Quebec City region on the south shore of Quebec.

I don't know exactly to what extent your question was about restricting tanker services, but doing that would be an issue.

4 p.m.

Conservative

Earl Dreeshen Conservative Red Deer—Mountain View, AB

Yes, and my point was, simply going back to the concept of a moratorium—and we've seen that on the west coast—it has nothing to do with foreign oil; it's Canadian-based oil that is being disrupted. That is my point.

I realize, Madam Chair, that I'm close to the end, so I will cede my time. Thank you.

4 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Sherry Romanado

Thank you very much. That is our time for today.

I'd like to thank the witnesses again for being with us on a beautiful Friday afternoon.

Thank you for your time and your input.

With that, I will call this meeting adjourned. I will see you all on Monday.