Environment Committee on June 3rd, 2014

[Trevor Nickel]

Thank you for your question, Mr. Sopuck, and for the opportunity to clarify.

The recyclables that I'm referring to in the context of an integrated biorefinery are only those recyclables that have value. A recyclable that has no value, or a negative value, isn't a recyclable; it's a waste. By consequence, we have to find other things to do with those.

The baseline thing to do with something that has no value is to combust it. If it's non-combustible and has no value, I would question whether or not it has been taken apart into small enough pieces.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Of course, if we take a commodity such as I'm holding in my hand right now, glass—and you can't see it—it's a completely inert substance composed of sand and soda ash, two materials that the world is clearly not short of. If it is put into a landfill, there is no leachate from glass and it happens to be a material that's very difficult to recycle. It's heavy and it costs a lot of energy to move around.

Mr. Nickel, what's your answer for glass?

[Trevor Nickel]

It's pretty easy to recycle that into road crush. It's very difficult to recycle it back into glass.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Right.

Mr. Nickel, what has the shale gas revolution done to the economics of the production of energy from waste in facilities such as yours?

Mr. Chiasson, you may want to weigh in on that particular one, because the shale gas revolution has brought the price of natural gas down considerably. My guess is that it puts pricing pressures on your industries. Is that a fair generalization?

[Trevor Nickel]

Since I still have the floor, sir, I would say that is absolutely the case. It has been very difficult to promote the use, especially of our anaerobic digestion technology, which produces a very competitive product to natural gas over the last several years, since 2008. On the other hand, there is a silver lining there. The use of natural gas for a large number of uses is on the upswing. The pricing forward curve for natural gas, as you may well know, is also trending up. So there are more uses. People are more used to using natural gas, and now we are producing a competitive product that we have had to hone over time to make it more competitive.

It also has some in-body characteristics that people like. You may wish to barbecue with renewable natural gas now. You may not, but you're only going to get methane either way, but it's definitely very possible to make use of that broader marketplace that has happened because of the low prices.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you, Mr. Nickel.

Thank you, Mr. Sopuck.

Our time is up on that.

We'll go to Mr. Choquette, please.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Before I ask my questions, I would like to say that the motion before us pertains to the management of municipal solid waste and industrial materials. The committee doesn't clearly state that the jurisdiction has to be federal, and since there is some ambiguity around the questions we'll be asking, I would like to propose the following motion. It will ensure that the study deals with issues of federal jurisdiction. We wouldn't want to waste any time on matters that aren't.

My motion reads as follows:

That the Committee undertake an eight (8) meeting study on the management of waste, and other areas, under federal jurisdiction. This study will focus on (a) technological innovation in such management; (b) the best practices of the federal authorities; (c) the management of nuclear waste; (d) the extended producer responsibility (EPR) policy; (e) the polluter pay principle; and the Disposal at Sea Regulations in relation to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999.

The polluter-pay principle is quite important, by the way. Mr. Nickel talked about it today.

I think this motion would be more appropriate, as it would ensure that we focused on matters of federal jurisdiction.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Committee members, we have agreed to a previous motion, that's why we're meeting in committee right now. However, Mr. Choquette presented his motion on May 12, so it's in order to consider the motion to extend the mandate of this current study. I'm going to ask for comments or questions on the motion.

Mr. Woodworth.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I have a point of order.

My understanding and recall in this committee is that when we are asked to determine motions of this sort, which touch on committee business, that we do so uniformly in camera.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

It's not mandatory.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I hate to do that. I'm sorry that we have a situation where we are interrupting witnesses, but if I'm right that this is our practice, I would not want to depart from it in this case.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

It is our practice, but I don't think there's any rule to that effect.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

We don't have to go in camera.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, if it takes a motion then I'll move that we go in camera.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

It's a motion to go in camera.

All in favour of that motion?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

I would like a recorded vote.

We don't have to move in camera to vote on the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

We're had a request for a recorded division to move in camera.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4)

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

We'll go in camera.

Hopefully, witnesses, we'll only be four minutes, but there are no guarantees. If you'll just leave the room for a few minutes and stay nearby, it's my hope that we can reconvene.

[Proceedings continue in camera]

[Public proceedings resume]

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Order, please.

Mr. Choquette, you have three minutes and 25 seconds left.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses for their input.

My question is for Mr. Cardinal.

In your view, what exactly is the federal government's role in the management of municipal solid waste and industrial materials?

[Douglas Cardinal]

I feel that the government, in a sense, is there to protect the interests of the public and to set certain standards that I feel are high standards in terms of the way we conduct our resources, the way we manage our resources. I feel very strongly that we should be looking at the resources a little differently than we do. The earth is like a store that's filled with inventory, and it doesn't make any economic sense to continually sell your inventory without concern for the limited resources that we have in our environment.

With the concern about how we create systems—sewage systems, landfill systems, garbage disposal—and how we affect the air, the water, and the earth, I think that we should set certain standards. I see that recently President Obama was setting certain standards for their concerns about their environment. I think that's an initiative that the government is taking and we should be doing the same in Canada.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Unless I'm mistaken, you'll make a recommendation to the committee, as part of this study, that the federal government's role should be to adopt very high standards, a bit like Mr. Obama recently did, with respect to air, land and water protection. Those are areas that fall under federal jurisdiction. Generally, the government is responsible for the environment, if my understanding is correct.

Would that be one of your recommendations?

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Mr. Choquette, your time is up.

We're going to move now to our next questioner.

[Douglas Cardinal]

Yes—

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

We're going to have to wait for a response on that until the following question.

Mr. Toet, you have five minutes.