Industry Committee on June 5th, 2020

[Isabelle Des Chênes]

Yes, it's an excellent platform. It was spearheaded by BASF Canada and Trimac. It builds on a platform that had been in place to link people who had goods to transport with trucks and transportation, sort of a dating network.

In this particular case, BASF and Trimac were able to modify it so that we could make it available to a broad spectrum. We've shared it as broadly as we could, including through the industry department. If you have a need for masks, gowns or face shields, you input those needs and the algorithms will set you up with the closest supplier to you. It's been running for three weeks. It's been incredibly effective.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you.

I'm going to quickly switch to La Roche.

Mr. Caragata, you mentioned antibody testing, and you said that you're hoping to get approval on that. Can you expand on the type of testing and how different antibody testing is from the other types of tests that are being investigated or researched?

[Logan Caragata]

Yes, maybe my colleague, Fanny, can expand a little as well, given her background.

The first test that was approved was a molecular test. These have been the tests that have been used throughout the COVID pandemic. The serology test is more focused on determining whether folks have had the disease in the past and not known it. For example, as a younger person, perhaps I had it earlier. I went to the Dominican Republic prior to coming back home, and then the pandemic occurred, so perhaps I had it. That's the type of test that the serology test would be used for, on people like me, and it would be a great use for folks who work in the health care system or folks who are teachers or things like that to check to see if they've had COVID in the past.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

That will definitely help the front-line workers. Great.

Let's go quickly to Madam Sie.

You talked about a three-gap system capacity and also data fragmentation. Unfortunately, I didn't get a chance to get the second one. I really want to focus on the data fragmentation. You talked about the data ecosystem: collect, assess, analyze and share. As it relates to the testing, I think access to this information and the participation in those is a key question as the rate of adoption of these various applications are being questioned.

I only have about 45 seconds. Can you expand on how important that is in helping complete the circle around data fragmentation?

[Fanny Sie]

I completely agree with you. I think testing data is important because it gives us a pulse on who is a confirmed case versus who potentially has immunity. There's also looking at the epidemiological evidence, where you cannot particularly test it in an individual, but you can look at population risk patterns to determine the probability of somebody having COVID. The combination of those types of data together can breed a really nice emergence strategy or something that we can use for pandemic planning. I completely agree with you, but there's a much larger picture to take into account, and that fragmentation is not helping.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Thank you very much.

We'll start the next round of questions with Mr. Lemire.

Mr. Lemire, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My question is for Mr. Dagenais.

Mr. Dagenais, I first want to point out that a major crisis such as COVID-19 has demonstrated that the Port of Montreal's infrastructure is indeed effective. We're seeing the culture of resilience that you referred to earlier. I want you to talk about the impact of your innovative adaptations, particularly the digital innovations.

Have these things contributed to your success in recent months?

[Daniel Dagenais]

Thank you for the question.

We implemented our strategy in the different sectors of the chain. Our valued assets, which I mentioned earlier, are obviously our workers and our corporate culture. They contribute to our resilience. Innovation plays a key role in our work at the Montreal Port Authority.

Our partners are aware of the various initiatives launched in the past few years. We recently launched a new initiative to decode customs declarations and ship manifests before goods arrive on our shores. We'll be using information technology tools and artificial intelligence to decode the documents, in order to properly identify shipments used to combat COVID-19.

Next week, we'll show our partners everything needed to develop the communication plans. The goal is to provide a flow of information to all logistics chain players. As a result, they can make the right decisions and they won't leave drugs, medical equipment or inputs in plastic, for example. This material is used to make personal protective equipment, which is considered necessary. The goal is for everyone to make the best possible decisions to facilitate the movement of these goods and to give these goods preferential treatment.

In addition to the movement of goods, and in keeping with the same goal of ensuring the safety of our employees, a series of measures will be implemented. These measures include the imminent introduction of proximity wristbands, which will alert employees when they're less than two metres away from each other. This will keep employees apart and ensure that they follow all the health rules. The goal is to never let our guard down and to keep the chain running.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Dagenais.

My next question is along the same lines, and it's for Mr. Lessard, from Groupe Robert Inc.

In recent years, Mr. Lessard, you've invested heavily in digital technology so you can better manage your supply chain operations. That strategy has clearly paid off given your work volume during the pandemic.

Can you tell us more about that?

[Jean-Robert Lessard]

Actually, from the outset, we were seriously concerned. We had more than 1,500 drivers all over Canada and the United States, and we wondered how we were going to supervise all of our employees to ensure safety. The measures we put in place were effective right from the start. We didn't waste any time: we went looking for the information we needed.

Within the first two days, we started taking workers' temperatures and observing physical distancing. You and I both know that's no small feat. We had to take into account the drivers arriving at the warehouse and the warehouse employees, not to mention those working at the distribution centres. We were very proactive, especially when it came to food and medical supplies. The demand was very high, indeed.

As strange as it may sound, we had to take safety precautions to track our trailers because they were carrying products that were being targeted by people who wanted to resell them. We had to be very cautious, especially with mask shipments. Obviously, that's something that was known. When we unloaded the famous Russian aircraft, the media were there and people were taking photos of the trailers. We had to transport all of those masks to specific destinations. Those were crucial steps we had to take.

What was disappointing was coming across inconsistencies in the supply chain. For instance, consideration hadn't been given to entrusting logistics experts with the product inventories, leading to a mask shortage because millions of masks were expired.

I'd like to make a small recommendation to the provincial and federal governments, if I may. It's important to deal with companies that specialize in logistics and have the ability to track expired product inventories, among other things.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Mr. Lessard, sorry to cut you off, but that concludes this round of questions.

The next round of questions goes to MP Masse.

You have the floor for six minutes.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for being here.

My first set of questions will be for the Chemistry Industry Association.

In your presentation, you mentioned that schedule 1 is creating confusion. Can you maybe expand on that? I'd be interested to hear a bit more about this confusion that you've identified.

[Isabelle Des Chênes]

Sure. I mean, the plastics haven't been listed there yet, but the CEPA's schedule 1 is titled, “List of Toxic Substances”. There are tons of substances, over 3,000, that are listed there, including zinc and CO2. If something is applied there, it means.... Once it's listed, it requires a management process.

We feel that plastics are not toxic. If they are in the environment, they don't belong there. That's what the issue is. Our firm belief is that we need a way to manage plastics to keep them out of the environment and create a circular economy so that we can reuse them over and over again.

The confusion that listing them as toxic creates is that if you're about to hand your child some Lego and that Lego is made of plastic, are you going to be comfortable handing that child something that has been designated as toxic?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

We used to have asbestos in our crayons, so it's not unusual that we have different chemicals in there. My car has chemicals and so forth.

Are you disputing the science about the toxicity of it? Are you saying that, scientifically, it doesn't belong on this list? I'm not sure. Are you saying that consumers or the general public are confused? Who is confused?

[Isabelle Des Chênes]

The science hasn't been done yet. The science is still very much in flux.

The federal government would need to do a risk assessment to determine what the impacts are. A draft science assessment was conducted by Health Canada and Environment Canada. It was primarily a review of the state of science, and it identified the fact that plastics are problematic in the environment, but there are no material impacts at this point because the science is just not available yet in terms of human health. More work needs to be done there.

The confusion is if you have campaign organizations that say that plastics are toxic and are sharing that information with the public. Plastics are ubiquitous. Your headset is made of plastics. There are plastics in your clothing. It becomes a problem in terms of trying to ensure that consumers are comfortable with products.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Your position then is that consumers and the general public are confused about the level of health effects of eating plastics or wearing plastics. Is that the position?

[Isabelle Des Chênes]

No, that's not the position. The products haven't been listed yet. We're asking the federal government to choose an alternative method to manage plastics. If you declare polypropylene, for instance, as toxic, that becomes problematic because the face masks you're wearing or the face shield you're wearing would then be deemed toxic. That's where the confusion lies.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I don't think it's that confused.

I worked for quite a long time on microplastics, and my legislation with regard to that went through the House. My experience is that people understand the difference between having plastic microbeads in their toothpaste, which they are now swallowing and are in the food chain, versus putting on this plastic headset that I have on right now. I don't think they are naive about the differences between those two different things.

I'm trying to figure out who is confused and on what issue. Your position is that confusion has been created or will be created, but again, I don't think the public is confused. I don't think retailers and packaging people are confused that there's a different consequence to how the product is used.

Who again is confused? I don't quite understand who is confused.

[Isabelle Des Chênes]

That's a fair point.

Our position is that these are not toxic, but they need to be managed. They can't be in the environment. Microplastics in particular degrade or deteriorate, and they should not be in the environment.

There are a number of other tools that we can implement, including circular economy legislation, that will allow us to incent the development of advanced recycling technologies to help with product design and create polymers down the road that have fewer additives in them and are safe. For us, it's that juxtaposition where you're saying a plastic is toxic, but everyone is using it, and that's what creates confusion.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

It reminds me of when I was on city council before this life. I pushed for the elimination of spraying chemicals unnecessarily, and we heard from the industry that it couldn't be done, for different reasons.

My time is up. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Thank you, MP Masse.

We now move to our second round of questions. Our first MP is MP Dreeshen.

You have the floor for five minutes.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Welcome to everyone for being here this afternoon.

I too would like to speak to the Chemistry Industry Association of Canada. When I look about 10 miles north of where I am, I see Joffre. There's a place where the petrochemical industry that we have in Alberta is really so critical.

On plastics and the use of them, I was in China a couple of years ago on a trade mission and they were in every place you would go in order to make sure there was food safety and security. A cob of corn would have a plastic wrapping on it. When we speak of single-use plastics, we've seen it in our grocery stores, where everyone is saying there's not going to be a charge on these plastic bags anymore. They want us to use them rather than bring in potentially contaminated fabric types of bags. There are so many things like that out there.

You mentioned, Ms. Des Chênes, that there are barriers for investment. Really, that's a critical part because it seems lost in this discussion of Canada's natural resources and the significance of them. No one looks at the 60% greenhouse gas reduction that you're speaking of. No one looks at that as far as agriculture is concerned. We recognize how much better Canada is than other places around the world, yet we do this signalling that we're going to stop this or stop that. I think of neonicotinoids and so on. There's this great push to take them away because they're going to kill bees. Well, quite frankly, the canola fields are where the beekeepers are taking their bees so that they have healthy opportunities to grow their product.

I'm really concerned about the way in which the industry is being portrayed. It seems as though we can't get through to people just how significant it is and how the money that can be made from our industries can go toward cleaning up plastics in the oceans and all these types of things if we would just unleash the power that we have in our industry.

I want to ask a question about some of those barriers or some of the things that are making us uncompetitive. One of them, of course, has to do with our carbon tax, where it is right now, what it is going to be in the near future. We are trying to compete with companies around the world. If we shut down our industry, it will be filled in from other places around the world. I'm curious as to what you feel the impacts of our over-regulating and not making ourselves a global player are going to do for our industry.

[Isabelle Des Chênes]

Thank you for the question.

I think one of the important things to keep in mind is that we are a natural resources country, and one of the things we forget is that our natural resources are actually among the lowest among other jurisdictions in terms of greenhouse gas emissions through the manufacturing cycle. Why is that? It's because we have more hydroelectricity than any other jurisdiction and we use natural gas in order to displace coal and other inputs. It's really important to keep that in mind.

What it means is that for our industry we have a lower greenhouse gas intensity footprint than many other jurisdictions. It means that the products that we produce are already, on a life-cycle basis, better for the environment than something coming out of China, and even sections of Europe.

Some of the barriers that we find.... We support a carbon tax. We support the idea of putting a price on pollution. The government's new clean fuel standard is a great opportunity to address transportation fuels. Our concern with the clean fuel standard is that on gaseous or industrial fuels it means that we'll be paying twice for the same molecules. Understanding that we're emissions-intensive, we're trade-exposed, we're more than happy to pay our part in terms of carbon pricing. We just don't want to pay twice for the same molecule that we're working with.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

I know my time is just about up. Of course, you are in an industry where you can pass the cost of a carbon price on to consumers. Is that correct?

[Isabelle Des Chênes]

No, we can't. We're a trade-exposed sector. We primarily export.