Environment Committee on June 14th, 2016

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to all of our witnesses today. Your consideration of these important issues related to CEPA is really appreciated.

I'd like to start with Professor Jessop.

It is clear from your testimony that government support for green, I'll call it sustainable chemistry technology, is crucial to this. I understand that the Government of Ontario made significant investments about a half a decade ago, maybe seven years ago. You've pointed to the enabling of commercialization as being a critical threshold issue. I wonder if you could speak to the collaboration that you have had with large chemical companies, for example, Dow Canada. What kind of collaboration has the academic green chemistry community received from larger chemical companies? I recognize the government funding stream is very important. How has the private capital stream been of assistance or not?

[Dr. Philip Jessop]

The assistance from industrial partners is extremely important. It's a bit weaker in Canada than in the U.S., because of the lack of industrial partners that are headquartered in Canada, which is a requirement for the federal government's matching funding. But the assistance of those industrial partners, whether or not we can get matching funding, is crucial in guiding us to making sure that our products are actually useful to industry. It's not just a matter of money; it's also a matter of guidance towards real needs. Some professors, certainly not the majority, have good contacts in industry and are able to use that to guide their discovery research as well as to further development in making technologies that can be commercialized.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

I'd like to follow on that question with a very brief one for Mr. Burt.

Mr. Burt, the presentation that you provided in writing, while very informative and data driven, and I appreciate that, didn't focus specifically on Canada. It was a much more global perspective.

Is Dow prepared to provide us with an overview of its operations in Canada and provide also some specific reference to sustainability initiatives or green chemist initiatives that are under way here? The insulation reference, I think that's apropos. I'm sure there are others, and I think our members would be interested in learning more.

[Michael Burt]

That's a good question. I appreciate it.

The numbers I gave you on some of the emission reductions that I spoke about in my notes are Canadian-specific; they are not global. But as a global company, you can understand that we spread our R and D across the globe as much as we can. The focus is mainly on the U.S., but in Canada, all the initiatives I've given when I spoke about a reduction in GHGs and our priority chemicals involve Canadian numbers.

From a sustainability standpoint, as a submission to the panel I gave our 2025 sustainability goals, which comprise a global initiative. I can't pull numbers, I guess, off the top of my head for some of the Canadian issues that we have, but in our operations in Alberta and Quebec and in Ontario we have made a substantial reduction in the chemicals of concern that have come up.

In Quebec, we have a credit position when it comes to our GHGs, which we transfer to our operations in California. Quebec and California have a program whereby you can transfer GHG credits between those two jurisdictions. One issue we've undertaken in our older operations in Sarnia has been to clean up a lot of the sites we had as we initially sited our operations in Sarnia but, because of economic considerations and lack of feedstock, transferred in large part to Alberta.

From a Canadian perspective then, we're very much in line with meeting our global goals, but I'd be more than happy to submit some information specific to Canadian goals at a later date to the panel as well.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you. I would appreciate that.

Madam Chair, how much time do I have left?

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

You have a minute and a half.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Okay. I'll be quick on this one.

I've asked other industry participants to do some blue sky thinking. It's inconceivable to me that CEPA 1999 cannot be improved to be rendered more sustainable, to be strengthened, and not in a way that is negative for industry, but in a way that actually enables industry.

What in Dow's opinion could be done to strengthen CEPA, taking as a starting point that while CEPA 1999 and the CMP system may work, it could be improved. Everything can be improved. What could be improved?

[Michael Burt]

I agree with that.

One issue Dow has is with the 2025 sustainability goals, what we refer to as a circular economy. One aspect we consider is that we want to make sure that any waste generated from one process is used as a raw material for another. One aspect that CEPA can look at from a risk perspective is how the waste streams are generated, whether there are other opportunities for them, how they are disposed of, whether they can be rolled into other products in manufacturing opportunities within Canada.

As I've alluded to in my talk, it's appropriate and timely to have a review of CEPA. What we don't want to do is throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak. One way in which CEPA can be strengthened is by looking at the holistic circular economy of the products that are developed and seeing what happens at the end of the day to these products.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Thank you very much.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

One thing I always do and forgot to do is welcome new members to the table. I would like to welcome Filomena Tassi, who is joining us at the table today. I'm sorry I did not recognize you earlier.

I'd like to turn the floor over to Martin Shields.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I appreciate the witnesses being here. We always gather a tremendous amount of information from the variety. It's a great learning experience for us.

Mr. Beasley, at the end of your presentation you were talking about another thing I was interested in, when you talked about development of industries that go with yours, as you've developed this business. I think you have a history of developing in this area with other businesses that you work with. Is there an explanation of the types of businesses and other industries that you have involved yourself with throughout your history in this industry. Can we get an idea of how many people are involved in the type of development you're involved in?

[S. Todd Beasley]

It's literally hundreds, if not thousands.

Fundamentally, we try to create technologies that have superb technological capabilities that produce by-products that are able to add value to the equation. We're interested not only in technical capability, but in the overall economics that are going to provide the best return, so that ultimately it's not government supporting the installation of these technologies, but industry, shareholders, and fundamentally again, superb technologies that have significant value-added by-products. Again in the context of the Boundary Dam project, we're taking what is considered waste and turning it into fertilizers. We're able to grow it and put it into crop nutrients, which has major societal benefits. We're then able to go ahead and use the carbon dioxide in a myriad of ways, but primarily in enhanced oil recovery, which represents hundreds if not thousands of ultimately sustainable jobs.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

You're identifying agriculture, and you're identifying the oil sector, but with the types of other businesses that are involved in working to develop this, and the materials you use, what other industries are involved with building these types of things?

[S. Todd Beasley]

Oh, it's significant manufacturing. SNC-Lavalin, for instance, provided the engineering for the Boundary Dam project. It represented enormous engineering and skilled, high hourly labour components for Quebec. This is truly a cross-country investment that was made. We have engineering. We have construction. We have intellectual property people who manage how these technologies are ultimately protected for the benefit of the stakeholders. Literally hundreds, if not thousands, of employees over a myriad various industries and disciplines are necessary in order to fully take this technology forward.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Has there been an international aspect to the companies you've been involved with?

[S. Todd Beasley]

Absolutely. Our technology, the CCR technology, is installed on five of the world's continents. We are in the Gulf of Mexico. We are in the North Sea. We are in the Russian Sakhalin project. We're off the coast of Australia. Fundamentally, we've just started up the largest system of its type in Saudi Arabia that's quite literally the size of this building. This represents a major opportunity for Canada to keep these treating chemistries pure and to provide this value-added technology that Canadian taxpayers and Canadian people can benefit from.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

With the industry you're in, are there competitors out there that are in Canada?

[S. Todd Beasley]

I would say there is no direct competitor that can achieve the technical capabilities of CCR Technologies. What we are able to do is take a highly inconsistent chemical stream, irrespective of the concentration and the types of impurities that are in that feedstock, and we can generate a consistently refined product that rivals the purity of new chemistry. No one in the world can stake that claim.

Moreover, the percentage of recovery of the mass that comes into the technology exceeds 98%, so the amount of waste volume that needs to be disposed of is dramatically lowered, because 98% of the mass can be recovered with this technology.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Beasley.

Professor Jessop, I appreciate your presentation. You made a statement about performance-based regulation, which is something that is intriguing to me. Can you explain how you would define that and what it would look like?

[Dr. Philip Jessop]

I would suggest that if toxicity reduction this year is your goal, instead of saying the individual chemicals in a formulation or product must have below a certain toxicity per gram, rather say the formulation has to have less than a certain toxicity. If someone's changing from that surfactant that's a bit more toxic but far more effective so that less is being used, you would get credit for that in terms of your overall formulation being a lot less damaging to the environment. If you regulate chemicals individually per gram of the chemical rather than per gram of the formulation, then that surfactant that would give such a big green improvement would not be allowed.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

In the process of identifying toxic, non-toxic, and serious risk, how does that process fit into that prospect? You have to identify the toxic chemicals. How does it fit in there?

[Dr. Philip Jessop]

I don't think there's such a thing as a toxic chemical versus a non-toxic chemical. All chemicals are toxic, even water. If you drink four litres, you would die of water poisoning. Everything is toxic, but it's a matter of degree.

You have to have a surfactant in a surfactant, or it won't work without it. If you have a surfactant in there, how toxic does it make that formulation? How much toxicity is being introduced into the environment by using that shampoo compared to another shampoo? The way you evaluate this is through a life-cycle analysis. You can't evaluate just by saying per compound, per gram, how toxic is it. You have to look at the formulation to get an assessment of the environmental impact.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

You increased the complexity multifold, because now formulations.... Oh, my gosh, my head is spinning.

Mr. Cullen.