Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In my Member’s statement today I talked about the concerns, but certainly with support, for the single bag program that really I think demonstrates good environmental stewardship and I think makes a lot of sense when it comes to plastic bags. I’ve heard a lot of people, if not every person I’ve spoken to on this particular issue, that they do support the initiative that is targeting plastic bags.
Mr. Speaker, where the concern arises from people is many people have been shocked, or certainly taken by surprise in one manner or another, that paper bags are included. I’m wondering if the Minister of Environment and Natural Resources can explain the rationale as to why paper bags were included in this particular levy when most people feel that they are recyclable and biodegradable and they don’t even meet what would be considered good stewardship of our environment. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. The honourable Minister responsible for Environment and Natural Resources, Mr. Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. When we looked at the lifecycle of the plastic bag, the paper bag and even the ones that are called biodegradable bags and compared it to the lifecycle of reusable bags, clearly all three were found wanting in comparison to the reusable, and that while paper may biodegrade in a landfill somewhat faster than other products, it takes more energy to produce and ship, it weighs more and in effect causes just as much waste or more than plastic because it’s bulkier. In fact, we have an initiative currently underway in its second phase where we are canvassing the North to see what interests there are and what options and innovations are there to deal with some of the massive amounts of paper products that we now currently put into our landfills. This is one way to reduce some of that burden on our landfills. Thank you.
Thank you. I wouldn’t disagree with the Minister on his comments about is it waste and is it needless waste, and I’m paraphrasing, in my own way, that more bags are probably bad. I think that that’s a common understanding out there, but the problem is, I don’t think people understood when they were supporting the bag levy process and certainly the reduction initiative, that paper bags were included in this particular initiative.
Mr. Speaker, in going forward on this particular case, is the Minister’s department going to do further work on this initiative? Would he be willing to inquire with the everyday citizen, and I’m trying to step aside from these special interest groups, would he inquire with the everyday citizen as to what type of cost this has on the lives of Northerners, what type of impact on the cost of living has it affected Northerners? Thank you.
Thank you. I would suggest it’s had a marginal and probably positive impact on the overall broad cost of living in the Northwest Territories. This is entirely a voluntary fee. People do not have to use plastic bags or buy bags at the store. As well, we also know that we are extending the life of our landfills, which has a significant cost for all of us who are dealing with Municipal and Community Affairs. You look at the cost of maintaining landfills and putting new ones in place, it is significantly less burden on the environment, as the Member himself pointed out in his comments, where you see bag products scattered across the landscape no matter which community or how far north, south, east or west you go.
Undoubtedly the Minister and I are certainly on the same page on this particular issue. I believe in the reduction initiative. That shouldn’t be confused over the concern that’s been raised to me, the fact that paper bags have been included. That’s really the particular issue, which is what type of consultation specifically pointed to paper bags would be part of the reduction initiative that the 25 cent levy would be applied to them outside of the average special interest group which was fully in support of banning practically everything.
The work we’ve done in this area has been I think very successful. There’s been significant consultation and the recognition that there are, in this particular issue, three types of bags that are clogging up the landfills and scattered across the countryside. Paper, while in some people’s mind it may be something that’s seen as what’s the problem, is very energy intensive, it’s bulky, it takes up a lot of waste that when you combine it with all the other paper product waste -- for example, the tons and tons of paper generated by business and government or the wastepaper products with cardboard in them -- it’s an enormous impact and negative impact on our environment. This adds together to help us address that issue.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Final supplementary, Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m in full support of reduction where we can and certainly where it makes sense. The question I really have now for the Minister is: is part of this program, what type of analysis and evaluation was ever taken into consideration about the spurred off, unforeseen industry of making all these recyclable bags that people now have tons of and in the sense that instead of using paper bags as a clear, biodegradable, environmentally sound, reasonable option, a lot of people are now buying all these multiple bags or getting stuck with them when they go to conferences and meetings? It’s created an industry in itself. Did the department do any type of evaluation in that regard?
I will commend the Member for taking full advantage of the niche opportunity that appeared as I am as well a personal recipient of some of the bags that he’s put out as Member for Yellowknife Centre. I think he’s to be commended for that. We know just on the plastic bags alone, that we’ve eliminated millions and millions and millions of bags from the environment and replaced them with reusable bags that have a much greater life expectancy and are reusable. I think it’s a very good step and I know the Member fully supports that.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. The honourable Member for Great Slave, Mr. Abernethy.
