The Great Stratford Glass Debate of 2020

As a former City Councillor in my hometown of Stratford, Ontario, I’ve had many reach out to ask my thoughts on the debate around the proposed float glass manufacturing plant the City is considering. I’ve pulled together my thoughts and what I would do below.

Economic Development Considerations

From an economic development perspective, the proposed float glass plant presents enticing numbers for any community:

• 1 million square foot facility;
• $400 million investment that will generate lots of construction jobs;
• $4.5 million annually in property taxes (24% of which goes to Perth South);
• $1.1 million in revenue from water/wastewater use; and,
• 380 direct jobs, including a mix of general and skilled labour and technical and engineering careers.

Of course, the bigger picture is that the proposed float glass plant could provide the foundation for a green building cluster in Stratford. Float glass is used for a range of architectural and auto products, as well as solar panels. There are no float glass plants in Canada, and the number has also shrunk in the United States, as production in the early 2000s tended to consolidate and move overseas. This is a story of the reshoring of jobs that have been lost to lower-cost jurisdictions, such as China.

With a float glass plant in Stratford, there’s an opportunity for energy-efficient building products companies focused on windows, doors and furniture, to co-locate in Stratford to take advantage of being close to their source product, as well as the research and development capacity of Xinyi. This could be the beginning of a new industrial cluster in Stratford. It’s not much different than auto parts companies co-locating close to auto assembly plants — there are economic benefits to hosting an anchor facility.

If COVID has taught us anything, it is that the economy will be very different moving forward. It will take years for the Stratford Festival to recover from COVID and Stratford needs to continue to diversify its economy if it’s going to continue to prosper. Seeing the big picture and how Stratford could build a green building cluster around this glass plant is where residents should focus.

Everyone in Stratford cites the rejection of the Canadian Pacific Railway constructing a rail line along Avon River as an example of the City’s foresight. And, rightfully, it is. However, it’s also good to remember there were also naysayers when Tom Patterson pitched the idea of a Shakespearan Festival in the city. Who would come to watch theatre in the backwoods of Southern Ontario after all? Well, we all know how that turned out. There’s lots of potential for Stratford in this opportunity, just like there was from the Shakespearean Festival. It’s easy to say no; it’s hard to build and realize a vision.

Environmental Considerations

One of the biggest concerns cited is the amount of water the proposed glass plant requires. Stratford gets its water from artesian wells and is lucky to have plentiful supplies.

The plant’s anticipated water use is 2,500 m3/day, which will result in about 912,500 m3 a year. Currently, Stratford is allowed to take up to 32,000 m3/day but only uses about 30.8% of its allowable daily total. The water for the proposed plant will increase this to 38.6% of the permissible daily limit. There is still lots of capacity in Stratford’s water system — and the scientists who review the limits and the local Conservation Authority have not flagged any concerns about the increase in water-use. I trust the scientists and hydrogeologists on this one — just like I trust the climate scientists when it comes to climate change.

The other main concern is air emissions. The proposed plant will have a 300 ft stack. The majority of what will come out of the stack will be steam — the plant uses recycled water to cool the glass, and ultimately this needs to be vented. Of course, there will also be some sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and particulates; however, the plant will need to meet Provincial emission requirements and has committed to meeting the new standards that are required starting in 2023. So as long as you believe in the government’s ability to ensure they meet the standards, there should be no issue.

These are essential concerns, no doubt, but they have to be looked at in the context of the product itself and its everyday use. I am sure most families in Stratford have cars that benefit from float glass, as well as homes with energy-efficient windows. Everyone benefits from these products — they need to be made somewhere. Is it better to make these products in China and ship across the ocean? Or do you make the product locally for the Canadian and U.S. markets, using higher environmental standards than what’s required in lower-cost jurisdictions, with all of the benefits of a lower carbon footprint for the product?

The transition to a green economy requires investments in manufacturing green products — and a vital part of those green products is float glass. Windturbines, solar panels, energy-efficient glass all require raw materials and manufacturing to produce — and this production should take close to the markets they serve to reduce their environmental footprint.

Local Democracy

From a process perspective, there have many complaints that there hasn’t been enough public input into the process, and the use of a Ministerial Zoning Order (MZO) to avoid the usual public process is heavy-handed. I would agree — an MZO is a blunt instrument to get to a decision on land-use. The Province is using them across Ontario in increasing numbers.

That said, there is a public debate happening — while there is no public process for the zoning requirements for the site, there is one for the site plan and the cost-sharing agreement for servicing the proposed plant. While the Province has dictated what the land will be zoned, Council and residents still can kill the project by not approving the site plan or servicing requirements.

There is also a concern that the discussions around the plant have been taking place for a while — maybe a few years. The discussions seem to date back to 2017 as a result of a Provincial trade mission to China. Large foreign direct investment projects like this often take years to realize and involve non-disclosure agreements between the company, potential host municipalities, and the provincial and federal governments.

While I’m not saying this is good from a transparency perspective, it is the reality of attracting investment and jobs to a community — if you want to play in the game, you have to agree to the rules. If Stratford didn’t play by these rules, you can bet it wouldn’t have the diverse economy it has today. For a city of its size, Stratford does very well in attracting foreign investment and jobs. Stratford Council obviously understands this — and that is why they would have, as a group, agreed to go down this road in collaboration with the company, the province and feds.

At the end of the day, more transparency and public debate would be ideal. Would more public debate change people’s perspective on the issue? I’m not sure in today’s hyper-partisan post-truth environment that it would. Would more transparency on the decision-making process, the pros and cons of a decision, and how the project fits into Stratford’s long-term vision be ideal? Totally and luckily, there is still time for Council, the Province and the company to share more information.

Local Labour and Housing

One of the most significant areas that raise a red flag for me is local skilled labour availability. Stratford has a low unemployment rate, and local manufacturers already struggle for staff. There are several reasons they struggle — many young people leave the City looking for opportunities in bigger centres, and many local manufacturers don’t necessarily pay good wages.

Of course, one way to raise wages is to have more competition for employees. And another way to increase your pool of employees is by offering creative and skilled labour opportunities, so local young people don’t choose to leave home. Developing a green building cluster might provide many of those young locals who go a reason to stay.

Investing in local labour to help them upskill to meet new job opportunities is another way to raise wages and attract employees. The proposed plant has planned partnerships with both Conestoga College and the University of Waterloo, addressing the need for skilled labour and collaborating on research and development projects to realize new product opportunities.

Yet even if they stay, Stratford, like many communities, is challenged for affordable housing. A tight supply means rents and the cost of ownership are rising across the region. This is a crucial issue Council needs to address. It means investments in affordable rentals and encouraging infill development in the core and new development opportunities. If the Province is so supportive of this project, it might be good for them to increase their contributions to affordable housing in Stratford to support these goals.

Another issue around local labour has been the identification of a dormitory on site for workers. There have been claims made on social media that the plant will only use labour from China, and that is how the dormitory will be utilized. There’s no argument that there will be a need for some — and I stress some — Chinese labour at first as there will be a need to training Canadians how to do this work and run the plant. But there is no way the Province would sign an investment agreement that would allow a foreign plant to operate on Canadian soil with only foreign labour. And, of course, Canada has labour and immigration laws that would forbid this type of employment regardless.

That said, should a dormitory be built on-site? The answer is no and that this investment should be made in the community. Think of using any of the many downtown development sites so that those working here enjoy what Stratford has to offer. Eventually, the units could be turned over to locals for affordable housing.

Racial Overtones

My personal concern throughout the debate is how steeped it is in racial overtones. The project is consistently referred to as a “Chinese” project. I’ve seen wild accusations on social media about the Chinese government placing their military on the site, having the power to choose plays at the Stratford theatre, and just flat out racism. Many may not like to hear this, but I suspect if the plant were German there would be less resistance.

What Would I Do?

As someone who was once on Stratford City Council, and because so many people from home have been asking for my opinion, here’s what I would do:

• Green Building Strategy — I would develop a broader green building strategy to show how the City will capitalize on the proposed glass plant to make the City a leader in a range of green building products. I would then articulate the big vision to residents and why the City needs a float glass plant’s foundation to make it happen.
• Servicing Costs — while the proposed servicing costs are for both the proposed plant and to open other industrial lands, I would push the Province to help with the City’s share of the costs. The City is due to cover about $5.8 million of the $13.4 million in servicing costs. The Province typically provides funding incentives for these large projects, and they have more financial firepower than the City. They could consider it an investment in helping Stratford build its green building cluster.
• Sustainable Site Plan — I would push the plant to incorporate leading-edge environmental practices into their site plan, so beyond the planned recycling of process water and solar panels, I would get them to invest in low-impact stormwater management that so that they are a model of onsite water quality and quantity management.
• Community Sustainability Fund — I would push the company to set up a local community water fund that could invest in source water protection projects in partnership with the Upper Thames Conservation Authority.
• Budget Impacts and Community Investment — I would highlight how the additional almost $4.5 million in City revenues each year could be used to support community projects, such as the redevelopment of the Cooper Site, investments in affordable housing, and other environmental initiatives. I would dedicate a portion of these new funds to projects identified by the community so that they can see the benefits of this investment more clearly.

Ultimately, I would approve the project — and work to maximize its benefit for the residents of Stratford.