Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Alberta

Ottawa’s next phase of ‘plastics’ war will increase cost of fruits and vegetables

Published

4 minute read

From the Fraser Institute

For decades, nutrition advocates have exhorted Canadians to eat more fresh fruits and vegetables. Canada’s Food Guide suggests that half of our meals should be fruits and veggies. Why then does the Trudeau government plan to increase fruit and vegetable waste—and increase their costs?

It’s all about the government’s war on plastics, specifically its agenda to eliminate plastic waste by 2030. Having already banned single-use plastic items such as drinking straws, stir sticks and plastic cutlery, the government plans to target plastic food packaging. And that’s going to hit consumers in the pocket.

According to a new study from the Canadian Produce Marketing Association (CPMA), under the new reduced-plastic packaging regime, food loss and waste will potentially increase 495,000 tonnes above current levels, incurring financial losses valued at $3.4 billion. These losses, at least in significant part, will ultimately be passed onto consumers. In a report by CTV, reporter Kevin Gallagher suggests that increased costs to consumers might reach 30 per cent.

The study authors suggest this estimate should be considered conservative, because it does not include the potential for single-use plastic bans causing a “complete disruption to some sectors of the fresh produce industry, and the anticipated 17.5 per cent increase in operating costs voiced by respondents that industry would incur.” And 17.5 per cent is the median—cost increases ranged from 11 per cent to 25 per cent. Assuming these increased costs are passed onto consumers, Canadians will see the price of fruits and veggies take yet another jump.

And for what reason? The Trudeau government has foolishly committed Canada to a “Zero Plastic Waste by 2030” crusade. But as I showed in a 2022 study published by the Fraser Institute, Canada does not have a significant plastic waste problem. Less than 1 per cent of plastics used in Canada end up as waste in the environment, and 99 per cent is safely buried in landfills, recycled or incinerated. Canada does not contribute a measurable part of the world’s plastic pollution.

And the government’s own analysis suggests that pursuing this war on plastics will ultimately lead to greater waste of alternative materials, which is already raising concerns among the environmentally-minded. In a separate CTV report Melanie Nagy quotes Nicole Rycroft, founder of Canopy, a forest conservation NGO, who said we should “shift away from using plastics as much as we do, but trading in plastic pollution for deforestation and forest degradation is not the answer” and we must “make sure we do not create another environmental disaster.” Rycroft added that “more than three billion trees—many of which are old-growth and endangered—are logged every year to make paper-based products like bags, straws and food containers.”

The Trudeau government’s zero plastic waste crusade was unsound policy from inception, and its own analysis showed the plan’s costs would outstrip its benefits and that it would create more waste, not less. And that most of that increased waste would come from increased consumption of wood and paper products.

Now, the government plans to ratchet up this harmful program, raising already painfully expensive produce in Canada to more painful levels. Ottawa must halt its “Zero Plastic Waste” agenda and take the entire concept back to the drawing board. It’s simply bad policy—bad for Canadian families, bad for our food sector, and as the Canopy tree people observe, bad for the environment.

Storytelling is in our DNA. We provide credible, compelling multimedia storytelling and services in English and French to help captivate your digital, broadcast and print audiences. As Canada’s national news agency for 100 years, we give Canadians an unbiased news source, driven by truth, accuracy and timeliness.

Follow Author

Alberta

The beauty of economic corridors: Inside Alberta’s work to link products with new markets

Published on

From the Canadian Energy Centre

Q&A with Devin Dreeshen, Minister of Transport and Economic Corridors

Devin Dreeshen, Alberta’s Minister of Transportation
and Economic Corridors.

CEC: How have recent developments impacted Alberta’s ability to expand trade routes and access new markets for energy and natural resources?

Dreeshen: With the U.S. trade dispute going on right now, it’s great to see that other provinces and the federal government are taking an interest in our east, west and northern trade routes, something that we in Alberta have been advocating for a long time.

We signed agreements with Saskatchewan and Manitoba to have an economic corridor to stretch across the prairies, as well as a recent agreement with the Northwest Territories to go north. With the leadership of Premier Danielle Smith, she’s been working on a BC, prairie and three northern territories economic corridor agreement with pretty much the entire western and northern block of Canada.

There has been a tremendous amount of work trying to get Alberta products to market and to make sure we can build big projects in Canada again.

CEC: Which infrastructure projects, whether pipeline, rail or port expansions, do you see as the most viable for improving Alberta’s global market access?

Dreeshen: We look at everything. Obviously, pipelines are the safest way to transport oil and gas, but also rail is part of the mix of getting over four million barrels per day to markets around the world.

The beauty of economic corridors is that it’s a swath of land that can have any type of utility in it, whether it be a roadway, railway, pipeline or a utility line. When you have all the environmental permits that are approved in a timely manner, and you have that designated swath of land, it politically de-risks any type of project.

CEC: A key focus of your ministry has been expanding trade corridors, including an agreement with Saskatchewan and Manitoba to explore access to Hudson’s Bay. Is there any interest from industry in developing this corridor further?

Dreeshen: There’s been lots of talk [about] Hudson Bay, a trade corridor with rail and port access. We’ve seen some improvements to go to Churchill, but also an interest in the Nelson River.

We’re starting to see more confidence in the private sector and industry wanting to build these projects. It’s great that governments can get together and work on a common goal to build things here in Canada.

CEC: What is your vision for Alberta’s future as a leader in global trade, and how do economic corridors fit into that strategy?

Dreeshen: Premier Smith has talked about C-69 being repealed by the federal government [and] the reversal of the West Coast tanker ban, which targets Alberta energy going west out of the Pacific.

There’s a lot of work that needs to be done on the federal side. Alberta has been doing a lot of the heavy lifting when it comes to economic corridors.

We’ve asked the federal government if they could develop an economic corridor agency. We want to make sure that the federal government can come to the table, work with provinces [and] work with First Nations across this country to make sure that we can see these projects being built again here in Canada.

Continue Reading

2025 Federal Election

Next federal government should recognize Alberta’s important role in the federation

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill

With the tariff war continuing and the federal election underway, Canadians should understand what the last federal government seemingly did not—a strong Alberta makes for a stronger Canada.

And yet, current federal policies disproportionately and negatively impact the province. The list includes Bill C-69 (which imposes complex, uncertain and onerous review requirements on major energy projects), Bill C-48 (which bans large oil tankers off British Columbia’s northern coast and limits access to Asian markets), an arbitrary cap on oil and gas emissions, numerous other “net-zero” targets, and so on.

Meanwhile, Albertans contribute significantly more to federal revenues and national programs than they receive back in spending on transfers and programs including the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) because Alberta has relatively high rates of employment, higher average incomes and a younger population.

For instance, since 1976 Alberta’s employment rate (the number of employed people as a share of the population 15 years of age and over) has averaged 67.4 per cent compared to 59.7 per cent in the rest of Canada, and annual market income (including employment and investment income) has exceeded that in the other provinces by $10,918 (on average).

As a result, Alberta’s total net contribution to federal finances (total federal taxes and payments paid by Albertans minus federal money spent or transferred to Albertans) was $244.6 billion from 2007 to 2022—more than five times as much as the net contribution from British Columbians or Ontarians. That’s a massive outsized contribution given Alberta’s population, which is smaller than B.C. and much smaller than Ontario.

Albertans’ net contribution to the CPP is particularly significant. From 1981 to 2022, Alberta workers contributed 14.4 per cent (on average) of total CPP payments paid to retirees in Canada while retirees in the province received only 10.0 per cent of the payments. Albertans made a cumulative net contribution to the CPP (the difference between total CPP contributions made by Albertans and CPP benefits paid to retirees in Alberta) of $53.6 billion over the period—approximately six times greater than the net contribution of B.C., the only other net contributing province to the CPP. Indeed, only two of the nine provinces that participate in the CPP contribute more in payroll taxes to the program than their residents receive back in benefits.

So what would happen if Alberta withdrew from the CPP?

For starters, the basic CPP contribution rate of 9.9 per cent (typically deducted from our paycheques) for Canadians outside Alberta (excluding Quebec) would have to increase for the program to remain sustainable. For a new standalone plan in Alberta, the rate would likely be lower, with estimates ranging from 5.85 per cent to 8.2 per cent. In other words, based on these estimates, if Alberta withdrew from the CPP, Alberta workers could receive the same retirement benefits but at a lower cost (i.e. lower payroll tax) than other Canadians while the payroll tax would have to increase for the rest of the country while the benefits remained the same.

Finally, despite any claims to the contrary, according to Statistics Canada, Alberta’s demographic advantage, which fuels its outsized contribution to the CPP, will only widen in the years ahead. Alberta will likely maintain relatively high employment rates and continue to welcome workers from across Canada and around the world. And considering Alberta recorded the highest average inflation-adjusted economic growth in Canada since 1981, with Albertans’ inflation-adjusted market income exceeding the average of the other provinces every year since 1971, Albertans will likely continue to pay an outsized portion for the CPP. Of course, the idea for Alberta to withdraw from the CPP and create its own provincial plan isn’t new. In 2001, several notable public figures, including Stephen Harper, wrote the famous Alberta “firewall” letter suggesting the province should take control of its future after being marginalized by the federal government.

The next federal government—whoever that may be—should understand Alberta’s crucial role in the federation. For a stronger Canada, especially during uncertain times, Ottawa should support a strong Alberta including its energy industry.

Continue Reading

Trending

X