Environment Committee on June 5th, 2014

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you, Mr. Trottier.

We'll move now to Monsieur Morin....

Yes, Monsieur Choquette?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Chair, point of order.

There seems to be a problem with the interpretation and sound quality.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Okay.

Mr. Starr, Mr. Staats, and Ms. Leung, when you're responding to a question, try to get the mike closer to the person who's speaking. That would be helpful. Thank you.

Monsieur Morin.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Hargreave, what I heard was: should we recycle at any cost?

Should we try to make an estimation of the value of the material we are recycling, let's say, comparing the recycling of aluminum to making new aluminum when we know how much electricity it consumes? Should we do that with every type of material we recycle?

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Mr. Hargreave.

[Peter Hargreave]

I think aluminum is probably not a good one to have this discussion on, because the majority of the time you're going to say that aluminum has a high commodity value and you're going to want to go after that material. Generally, right now in the marketplace, you don't need a lot of additional pieces to go after that aluminum. There is already an economic incentive to go after that material.

When you start looking at some other types of plastics, for instance, the economic case starts to fall apart a little bit. But I think you need to look at it. I would expect that government would look at it and ask, what are the consequences from an economic and an environmental perspective from this material simply going to disposal?

I think you'd look at both of those factors and decide if you should be going after that material.

I think for the majority of materials you're going to say that yes, absolutely, it makes sense to go after them. But there is always going to be the question to ask: to what end?

As you start getting higher and higher percentages, it's going to be much more difficult to capture those materials. Those materials could be contaminated with other waste. So at some point you will say that the cost is too much and there is potentially a need to look at other options for that material.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you.

To a certain extent what I'm going to say might hurt my government colleagues' ears. But should the government control the type of material that is being used in industry, such as all the overpackaging with wonderful materials, including plastics that are metal-coated? Quite often they can be very useful in manufacturing goods, but sometimes they are just non-recyclable waste being produced.

Should there be rules?

[Peter Hargreave]

My answer to that question would be that I don't think state-controlled economies ever work out very well. My suggestion to you would be that what the government needs to do is set outcomes. They need to say that if you put this product in the marketplace, it needs to be recycled.

There are a lot of bright minds in the waste diversion industry who could find ways to capture those materials, or capture the energy from those materials. What I would suggest to you is that the sector is innovating continually and if there is the incentive for them to do it, they'll make sure they do it.

That's certainly happened. Earlier Emmie referred to the advancement in optical sorters that is happening. Doug certainly talked about the energy from waste facilities and some of the advancement that's happened in that sector. It's come a long way over a very short period of time. We're not dealing with the same sort of.... To use the example of SWARU,in Hamilton, you have highly sophisticated types of energy from waste facilities that can produce results. You have huge advancements in how to divert material and how to find new ways to use that material in new products.

For that fact, even on the landfill side, there have been huge advancements in ensuring that we're properly collecting leachate and that we're capturing gas. There have been huge advancements in the waste management industry.

What government needs to do is set the outcomes, that is, what do you want to see happen, and then let the sector innovate, and make sure there is some oversight over that sector that refers back to the environmental standard and then oversee that standard.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

You have 10 seconds. If you have a short question, I'll let you go.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you.

We'll move back to Mr. Woodworth.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'll double-check something with you, Ms. Leung, if I may. My impression in listening to you is that your economic model is very much a sustaining and profitable model. You obviously must have contracts with municipalities, but I don't get the sense you are in any way operating on the basis of any government subsidy, or as some like to call it, government “investment”.

Am I right in that assessment?

[Emmie K.H. Leung]

Yes, you're right. Our company is 100% privately owned, family owned.

I always believed in innovation and developing the right technology to make it the most efficient and cost-effective way of doing the business. I believe the way we have been doing it has enabled us to sustain our company's growth.

I would like to add to what Peter said a minute ago. Governments need to set the framework for the business, including the performance outcomes.

Given that you have a national standard of, say, 70% waste diversion, private industry will still find a way to do it. They'll change their packaging from multi layers or all these products you call difficult to recycle. If you set the framework, set the outcomes, and give them, say, three to five years, they will innovate.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

That's very good. Thank you very much.

Mr. Starr, I was a bit intrigued by the comment that you have been at it since the 2009 launch, and essentially you're working your way through the approval process. I'm only imagining there would be, of course, local municipal land use approvals to obtain, but also certain environmental conditions would need to be satisfied in any discharge into waterways or air.

I wonder if you could describe for us what measures are being put in place to deal with what regulations, and have you come up against federal regulations in your approval permitting process yet?

[Doug Starr]

That's a good question. No, we haven't. Our focus has been to work with and comply with the Province of Ontario.

In 2007 the Ministry of the Environment launched the environmental screening process for waste management projects. It's regulation 101-07. So we met the requirements to begin that approval process, that regulatory process. We've been working through the environmental screening process.

Along with that, as Lewis alluded to a while ago in his introduction, we are also working through what's called a human health and ecological risk assessment. That's a further detailed study assessment on human impacts and the ecological impact of the proposed project. That will then be bundled for the Ministry of the Environment.

Once we get through that major piece of the approval process, the remaining phase, or the second phase we'll call it, is the environmental compliance approval. It used to be called the certificate of approval. Now it's the environmental compliance approval.

So we're working 100% with the Ministry of the Environment within the Province of Ontario.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

May I assume it would be your view that at the end of this process your facility will have the highest possible standards of environmental protection for the ecosystems and for the communities around where it will operate?

[Doug Starr]

Absolutely. That's why all the work is being done right now.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

You're not inviting us to add on a federal approval process to what you've already endured are you?

[Doug Starr]

No. I think we're fine with what we're dealing with right now. Thank you.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I wanted to make that point tongue-in-cheek because in many areas we have people in your situation who for years have had to endure duplicate approval processes against both provincial and federal standards. It seems to me the process you describe is working very well and will lead to solid environmental outcomes.

I wanted to ask Mr. Hargreave about the issues....

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

I'm sorry, Mr. Woodworth. You're going to have to wait until another time. I was not watching the clock.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for your laxity.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

We will move to Mr. Toet, please, for five minutes.

Maybe he can pick up on your point.