Evidence of meeting #26 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 plastics.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Thank you so much.
I appreciate that response. It seems to me that some of the largest companies in the world are confounded by this very simply definition and will crumple under the weight of it even though it's very clear.
Mr. Chair, how much time do I have left?
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Well, I just want to say thank you. Again, with this definition that is fully clear, it's just a bit surprising to hear from major corporations that are highly sophisticated the suggestion that this isn't clear and that this will cripple their business.
Thank you, Professor Curran, and thank you, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you, Mr. Bittle.
Ms. Pauzé, you have the floor for six minutes.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to thank our witnesses, of course. I'd love to have them all to myself and be able to ask them all the questions I have.
I'll start with Mr. Burt, vice-president at Dow.
Mr. Burt, you said that your company was active in the field and had a lot of questions about plastics. That said, I want to pick up on a number of things that your president, Mr. Fitterling, recently pointed out in an article in the Financial Post. Representatives of many companies in your industry have expressed the same concerns to our committee. I'm going to correct some of the things that have been said by these companies and Mr. Fitterling, if I may.
First, your industry suggested that there wasn't enough scientific evidence, yet there's plenty of scientific evidence about the damage that plastic pollution causes to the environment. No scientist in the world would argue with that. The damage to the environment exists beyond any doubt. In fact, Ms. Curran mentioned it right off the bat.
The federal government also assessed this before proposing to add plastic manufactured items to the list of toxic substances in Schedule 1 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Health Canada has produced 200 pages on this subject. The addition of a toxic substance to this schedule under the act requires the government to manage that substance to reduce any adverse effects it has on the environment or human health.
We know that Canadian environmental law follows the important precautionary principle, which is enshrined in international law. Under the precautionary principle, if we don't have all the scientific evidence, when in doubt, we should refrain. This is what exists in Canadian environmental law.
Also, strategic medical equipment and vehicle components, for example, aren't single-use plastics. They shouldn't be lumped together because doing so would be disinformation.
As for Dow Chemical, you said there was no investment. Dividend returns to shareholders totalled half a billion dollars in the quarter ending December 2020 alone. Total cash and committed liquidity available at the end of the quarter was $14.6 billion. That's an increase of $3.9 billion over the same period last year. So we understand that Dow Chemical's business is doing very well.
I'm finally going to ask you some questions. Your company produces polypropylene in a variety of forms for a host of applications. So let's talk about polypropylene, whose production alone covers a significant amount of single-use products. Your production is therefore definitely upstream of the plastics industry, since it produces this polypropylene. This resin can only be recycled into fibres. My question is very simple. I want you to give me a yes or no answer, which will allow me to ask my other questions.
Do you intend to gradually distance yourself from the production of this virgin resin?
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
You don't want to move away from it. I think you certainly have all the chemists and engineers to manage. The expertise of the Dow Chemical employees would be a major asset to help advance the circular economy, which we talked about earlier.
Are you not thinking of developing an innovative product or technology to ensure safe reuse of your products?
Vice-President and Global Director, Climate and Energy Policy, Dow
I'd like to answer a few of the questions you posed to me.
Actually, Dow does not make polypropylene. We're the world's largest manufacturer of polyethylene, so most of our products do not go into single-use plastic. We do sell a lot into the food-wrap business, but we do not sell into the single-use plastic bags, straws, stir sticks or six-pack ring holders. Most of our products go into durable goods. We sell a lot into the automotive and electronic industries. The bans that the federal government is looking at imposing would impact Dow to a very small extent.
We are very proud of our financial performance. You don't get to be a company that survives for over a century by doing the wrong thing. We are one of the top diversity-inclusion companies. We are an innovator. We solve the world's problems.
You highlighted a very important point. You talked about the impact of plastic waste on the environment. Plastic waste is detrimental and needs to be addressed. We wholeheartedly agree. Plastic waste is critical. It is detrimental to the environment. That's why we are confused as to why the federal government wants to tackle plastic products when, really, it should be tackling plastic waste. The reality is that the world doesn't have a plastic problem, but it definitely has a plastic-waste problem. That's where we would like to see the federal government do most of its investment in products and solutions going forward.
The reality is that, from an investment standpoint, Dow Canada is a profitable company. I'm a Canadian, born and raised. I'm always advocating for investment by my company in the country that I love. One of the mechanisms by which we do that is by making sure that the jurisdiction we operate and want to invest in basically has the correct legislation in place to deal with the products that we're looking at manufacturing. We are innovators.
Liberal
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to all of our witnesses.
It's especially good to see Professor Curran with us, given the pivotal role that the Environmental Law Centre has played in the impetus behind the topic we're talking about today. She mentioned the meeting with former MP Murray Rankin, Member of Parliament Gord Johns and MP Wilkinson, who's now our environment minister.
Professor Curran, I wonder if you could start by just talking about the proposed ban on single-use plastic and where it fits in the larger effort to combat plastic pollution.
Executive Director, Environmental Law Centre, University of Victoria, As an Individual
I sort of draw the analogy with water regulation, and you might all feel like letting your minds wander when I say that, but I deal a lot with water. We virtually do not manage water in Canada, except in a few areas. We have very little conception of who is using water in what quantities and then, ultimately, what that means for the level of pollution in those water bodies. The Great Lakes are excepted, to a certain extent, at a macro scale, but throughout communities across Canada, we haven't even begun to scratch the surface of understanding the way in which we use that fundamental resource.
I would say the exact same thing about plastics. Plastics as products and as something that has helped our economy evolve in an efficient way are virtually uncontrolled in the sense of us as citizens and you as parliamentarians asking the question of what we expect or will tolerate from an industry in terms of our long-term view of how we want to use our natural resources, and then what comes out the other end in terms of plastics.
A plastic bag ban or a single-use plastic ban—which is a form of regulation that needs to be quite nuanced and that leads to more nuanced regulation—is really the absolute minimum bar for having some sense of recreating or shifting the industry into something that allows for a much more intensive use of that input as a natural resource. We always use the analogy that it's low-hanging fruit. It's the first step. It's a really very low bar to have for entering into that conversation about how we want to retool our regulation and our economy for the circular economy.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thank you for that answer.
We've heard many arguments from Mr. Burt on behalf of the plastics industry. It made me think about all of the products that Canada has banned because they've been problematic over the past decades. Listening to his arguments on behalf of his industry, I wonder if you could speak to the parallels. Are these common arguments that we hear from producers of substances and products as part of the conversation about whether they should be more strictly regulated by our government?
Executive Director, Environmental Law Centre, University of Victoria, As an Individual
Another gross analogy would be the forest industry. Forty years ago, particularly in British Columbia, forestry was what drove that province and it certainly massively contributed to our education and public health care systems. There were very few regulations on how forestry could occur.
However, as we began to understand the impact of forestry on fishery stocks and on the long-term sustainability of communities as a result of the way in which different areas were allowed to be cut over a certain amount of time, then of course we brought in regulations at a provincial scale for doing forestry in a certain way that takes a much more long-term view.
We now have in B.C. a world-leading set of agreements between the seven nations in the central coast and the provincial government called the Great Bear Rainforest agreements. We could point to Haida-Gwaii as well and the federal government's involvement in marine management there. The Great Bear Rainforest agreements take explicitly within provincial law—in the orders under the provincial forestry legislation—a 250-year time frame that respects indigenous values in certain ways and looks at sustainable forestry and sets an annual allowable cut over a 10-year period. This is done done with the forest industry at the table negotiations over a 10-year period and taking a 250 year time perspective. If we would like to evolve to a circular economy, then we need to take a much longer term perspective and have a phased approach to the implementation of regulation and allow for that adaptation.
I'm hope I'm not naive enough to think that Canadians will simply stop using throwaway or single-use products, because I do think there is an element of convenience that we all like. However, this is a first foray into better shaping the way that industry operates in Canada. It's quite clear that the environment cannot simply be used as a dumping ground for activities or products that industry deems acceptable. There is a public interest function between the creation of a product and the disposal of it that the federal and the provincial governments fulfill.
Executive Director, Environmental Law Centre, University of Victoria, As an Individual
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
We'll go to our five-minute round now starting with Ms. McLeod.
Conservative
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Thank you. I think we've had a really robust conversation.
I want to sum it up a little bit before I ask my question. I think we're hearing that everyone—and we've had other meetings on this as well—agrees that plastic waste and improper disposal is an issue. I think we can pretty well agree that there are times when feasible alternatives can be used and that we're learning more and more. There are new products, as we heard from Madame Boudreault, being developed and that will be very appropriate.
We also have heard that right now, and for the foreseeable future, plastic will at times be the only solution, and we've heard that recycling and a circular economy are important. The volume issue that was raised by Mr. St-Hilaire was interesting, because if we diminish our use to a degree, we might impact our ability to have that circular economy.
Where I'm hearing a disagreement is around the labelling of “toxic”, and we can maybe talk about my other points later. Mr. Bittle talked about it being a simple definition. I did note Professor Curran's explanation of the definition, but I can tell you what the public think. When the public hears something labelled as toxic, all of a sudden when that plastic IV bottle goes up or my meat is wrapped in plastic, the definition is no longer simple. It is a perception among the public of significant harm that would be caused to them by virtue of that label. I would say that there might be a few people on the environment committee, and others, who understand what the definition is, but the general public have an understanding of toxic as a certain thing and it will create fear. I think it is a justified comment.
Mr. Burt, first of all, does that reflect your thinking about the labelling, or am I off base there?
Vice-President and Global Director, Climate and Energy Policy, Dow
No, that's exactly the position we've been advocating for. You're correct. We understand the definition; we've read the statute and we know what the legal implications are. The reality is that it's a source of confusion in the marketplace. Everyday plastic is ubiquitous in the environment and in the world right now, because it has so many varied uses. When you start labelling something as toxic.... As soon as the federal government released Canada Gazette, part I, and indicated that it was going to add plastic manufactured items to schedule 1, the toxic substances list, immediately other geographies around the world picked up on that, and there were news reports that Canada was about to deem all plastics toxic.
The fact that they're looking at plastic manufactured items, not specific polymers or the actions associated with them.... It's a broad category of everything that's manufactured with plastic that will be on the toxic substances list.
Conservative
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
I know that sometimes well-meaning changes are made with implications and ramifications, and I'll use a small substance as as example. The CFIA all of a sudden determined that a small substance—I won't get into the technical details—of a product were.... They changed the level of that substance that was allowed in a product within Canada, and all of a sudden it started to impact.... I have a company in Kamloops that's called Absorbent Products. It created an anti-caking agent for cattle feed, and now all of a sudden, because of that designation and that very tiny change by CFIA, the owner can't export his product any longer to the United States.
If we are looking at potential implications, do we have any concerns in this area? Certainly this product was deemed in the United States an appropriate additive for cattle, and all of a sudden a business with 30 or 40 jobs was been shut down because of a very minute change at Health Canada or CFIA.
Are there any concerns or worries about ramifications down the road?
Vice-President and Global Director, Climate and Energy Policy, Dow
Yes. The reality is that we don't know where the legislation will take us. There are criteria associated with toxic products and their free movement across the border. We have the new USMCA agreement between Canada, the United States and Mexico. Toxic products are heavily regulated under international trade. If you deem a product toxic, there are certain criteria that you have to adhere to.
As I alluded to earlier, the federal government has not indicated whether, if they ban these items, they are also banning the manufacture of them. Are they also banning the export and importation of them? That's the slippery slope that has many individuals and corporations in the entire petrochemical value chain very concerned.
The other issue is that we have six items right now—and it's not actually six items.... The last bullet point of the six items the federal government is proposing to ban covers a broad spectrum of food takeaway containers made of hard-to-recycle plastic.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
We will have to move on now to Mr. Baker, for five minutes, please.
Liberal
Yvan Baker Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
Thanks, Chair.
Thanks to all our witnesses for being here today. Unfortunately I can't ask all of you questions, though I, like Madame Pauzé, would appreciate the opportunity to do so.
I'm going to direct my questions to Professor Curran to begin with.
Professor, in your response to one of my colleagues, you said that the ban on single-use plastics is a “low bar”. I think that's the language you used. Can you explain why you say it's a low bar?
Executive Director, Environmental Law Centre, University of Victoria, As an Individual
The reason it's a low bar is they are arguably the most visibly polluting types of plastics that we have, and they are not necessary for the day-to day carrying on of society. I'm thinking specifically of plastic straws and single-use plastic bags, for example. There are always exceptions in the health care field or for other reasons. With all types of new regulation where we're considering changing things for the first time, it's pretty rare that we impose an outright ban on everything. Typically, we do pilots, we do test cases or we start with a particular realm of a substance or an activity. We then regulate it, and then people's behaviour starts to change. The perfect example for that is our blue box recycling program across Canada.
In the Capital Regional District where I live, about 10 ago—we've had it for many more years than that—the district, which owns the Hartland landfill, decided it was going to be too expensive to find another landfill within 50 years. That was the projected life of the landfill right here in one of the most expensive housing markets in Canada. If we were to find a new landfill, we would have to truck our waste up and over a set of mountains and then carry on up the island and pollute another community.
In short, what the CRD decided to do was to decrease our waste by 50%, and it progressively instituted additional regulations for what was banned from the landfill. Suddenly we're taking a lot more types of plastic in our blue boxes. We can no longer put yard waste or food waste in our garbage cans, and within five years, they met their targets to reduce waste by 50%. That's exactly the same analogy for this slow but incremental regulation of plastics. We shift behaviour over a period of time and allow that change to occur.
Liberal
Yvan Baker Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
If a ban of single-use plastics is a low bar, what would be the next step in raising the bar after that?
Executive Director, Environmental Law Centre, University of Victoria, As an Individual
There are lots of other great recommendations, again moving towards a more fulsome view of the circular economy, which then provides opportunities for businesses that are in this industry.
One would be to require a minimum amount of recycled material in all types of plastics that are produced, but in order to do that, as another witness said, you have to have the input. Those inputs have to be the kinds of plastics that are reusable. That's why you need the first step of regulating or directing what kind of plastic is brought into Canada and manufactured here. Then, when you go to reuse it and have a requirement for recycled content for certain kinds of products, you have that input. That is starting on the cycle of the circular economy in Canada.