Mr. Chair, I'd be happy to.
I want to first commend Dow, which is often used as the example of a company that has adapted as we've learned about chemicals over the last 40 years in particular. There are many stories from Dow Chemical about how they were innovators and leaders when they realized one type of waste stream that was coming from their factories was then able to be used for something different. They really are innovators in this area.
It's really important to have a look at the text of CEPA. I'm looking at section 64, which gives the interpretation of “toxic substances”, and I think we can all agree that paragraphs 64(a), 64(b) and 64(c) are exactly what plastics do: They “have or may have an immediate or long-term harmful effect on the environment or its biological diversity;” they “constitute or may constitute a danger to the environment on which life depends;” or they “constitute or may constitute a danger in Canada to human life or health.”
This is relevant for plastics. It is directly applicable, and CEPA, not as a criminal law statute, actually provides a framework for the management of all sorts of substances and activities within federal jurisdiction. As you know, federal jurisdiction is somewhat unique and shared in this area. The regulation of substances really is a tripartite endeavour between the feds, the provinces and municipalities, and in this area of plastic, every single level of government would like to take action in that way.
There's a high degree of consensus between the provinces and the federal government about banning certain types of substances, banning certain types of plastics, for the express purpose of better regulating what can then be produced and come into our environment so we can use it again in a variety of different ways.
It's really important to keep our context of, when we say “ban”, we're meaning regulate for almost the first time. Right now, you can go out and commission almost any kind of plastic that you want, irrespective of whether it can be reused at all, and that's simply no longer acceptable. We need to reuse substances time and again for a variety of different purposes, and one way to achieve that shift in our economy and the way in which we view materials used in Canada is through regulation.
Obviously, there are all sorts of different mechanisms that need to be embedded within a larger, long-term, phased plan around taxation, around incentives, around the work, for example, that Dr. Misra is doing in creating new materials and opportunities. However, creating a framework under the act that is phased and that also sends messages to industry about the way in which we expect plastics to be made so that we can re-use them or that they can be used for other things is very important.
As my final point, there are going to be all sorts of single-use plastics that we won't get rid of, obviously in the health care industry, and in certain food-related contexts. Those will simply carry on and it's up to you as legislators to decide what the boundaries of those are, but there are such very easy starting places with things such as plastic straws and single-use paper bags, where the Canadian public simply no longer accepts those as a useful part of our daily lives.
Thank you.