Science and Research Committee on Sept. 24th, 2024

[Atul Bali]

That is exactly right. That is such a good analogy.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

We will now turn to MP Jaczek for four minutes.

[Helena Jaczek, Liberal, Markham—Stouffville, ON]

Thank you so much, Madam Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for appearing.

Ms. Seaman, in the brief that the Chemistry Industry Association of Canada submitted to our committee, you suggest a recommendation that the federal government incentivize the increase in recycling capacity. After that, you have a whole description of advanced recycling.

At the same time, we've also received a brief from Environmental Defence. What they have said about advanced chemical recycling is that it “is an especially false solution”, that it “creates a new mix of chemicals, not plastic”, that it's “energy intensive and inefficient”, that it “produces toxic substances”, etc.

Could you perhaps respond to that criticism to give your position that advanced recycling is something that the Government of Canada should pursue through incentives?

[Christa Seaman]

Think of advanced recycling like LEGO. I have LEGO. I build it into a car. I have different colours of bricks as I'm putting it together.

There are multiple different technologies that will do advanced recycling. Some of them are very energy intensive but are still of lower energy intensity than virgin plastic. What chemical recycling or advanced recycling does is use indirect heat and pressure to break those bricks apart so that you can pile your red bricks, your green bricks and your blue LEGO® blocks together. At the other end, you can then take those bricks and make a flower or a house instead of a car.

While there is a breakdown of the material, we are able to say what materials are being produced, what plastics are being produced, and we manage it the same way we do any of our other chemical manufacturing processes.

[Helena Jaczek, Liberal, Markham—Stouffville, ON]

Thank you.

Dr. Bali, do you have any comments on the two sides of what our advice is here?

[Atul Bali]

I'm not sure that I have advice. I just have an observation, and I think it's about transparency.

I think there has been so much greenwashing, both in the area of recycling and in the area of biodegradation, that the government needs to step up now and, with science, ask for transparency from every brand owner. There is no reinventing the wheel in this.

If you have a recycled plastics stream, there is a certain amount of energy being used to either mechanically or chemically recycle. There is a certain global warming potential being created. There is a certain amount of GHG being emitted. Talk about it. Publish it. That should decide whether that should really be part of a solution or part of a problem. It really is very simple.

There are two very commonly used standards in Europe. We go to Europe pretty often because the European Union has some very strong regulatory frameworks around this, as you're surely aware. It has the PPWR, for example. There they just talk about two things. They talk about the ISO 14000 standard, specifically the ISO 14044, and they talk about the carbon-14 standard. These are two globally acknowledged ways of identifying the renewable content in any product, any plastic you're putting in the market, and of identifying the global warming potential of it.

To conclude this point, I will just say one thing to you: The automotive sector, in my experience in the last 30-odd years in industry, never asked for the global warming potential of any solution being offered. Now, every automotive company in their RFQ demands that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

Now we will have MP Blanchette-Joncas for two minutes, please.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I will continue with the scientific aspect.

Mr. Bali, we need to have this discussion. I think we will agree.

You said that science-based decisions had to be made, and you mentioned one criterion, the increase in greenhouse gases. Earlier, I gave examples of technological neutrality. The government purchased a $34-billion piece of infrastructure, the Trans Mountain pipeline. Through it, we will produce 300,000 barrels a day, and that number will increase to 890,000 barrels. That's a 200% increase. Greenhouse gas emissions will go from 21 million to 26 million tonnes a year. Personally, I have rarely seen environmental activists driving a Hummer. However, I get the impression that this is what the government is trying to make us believe.

As a scientist, do you think it makes sense to increase greenhouse gas emissions from 21 million to 26 million tonnes a year while paying lip service to plastics recycling?

[Atul Bali]

You are right, Mr. Blanchette‑Joncas, but if I may, I will answer the question in English, even though I understood it in French.

I will say the following to you. The government has made a decision—for whatever good reasons, I'm sure—but to be very clear, has it examined every other science-based alternative solution? If the answer is yes, through proper due diligence based on science and science alone, then yes, it's a good decision. However, if it is not based on science and it hasn't examined the alternatives to give our country global leadership in the area of GHG reduction, it's a poor decision.

Personally—and this is entirely my personal opinion—I lean towards it being a poor decision, but that is my opinion. However, if the decision was made based on good, solid science, using internationally acknowledged standards, that's good.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

For our final questions, we will go to MP Blaney for two minutes, please.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Thank you.

I'm going to come back to my new friend, Dr. Mohanty.

I wonder if you could share with the committee some examples of the most promising sustainable materials your team has developed at the Bioproducts Discovery and Development Centre.

How do they differ from traditional materials in their environmental impact?

[Dr. Amar Mohanty]

Thank you very much for the question.

I already talked about it in my opening remarks, but I want to give one example of how the University of Guelph has made a breakthrough in composite materials, and especially biocomposite materials. We pyrolyzed all the waste coming out, whether municipal solid waste, biomass waste or waste plastics, etc. The first time, we invented the terminology “biocarbon”. Biocarbon is a filler material.

In the automotive industry, for example, most of the parts are black in colour. When an automotive part is made, whether it's the bumper of a car, the seat of a car or the handle of a car, it's all mostly made from polypropylene-based materials mixed with talc or glass fibre. The talc and glass fibre are very energy-intensive and very high density. For example, they're 2.6 grams per centimetre cubed. With our invention of those biocarbons, whose density is one-half that, we converted the waste into the materials and we supported the circular economy and used filler materials.

We invented that technology, and it is now being used as a new biocomposite, biocarbon-based material by the Ford Motor Company in its headlamp housing in the Lincoln model. It is 20% lighter than the talc-filled polypropylene composites, and it is sustainable.

That's one of the innovations we made from waste resources to support the circular economy. That's one example.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

Unfortunately, that's the end of our time today.

Thank you so much, witnesses. If you have any additional comments you'd like to submit, you can submit them through the clerk.

Before we adjourn today's meeting, this is a reminder that the witness lists for the committee's study of new capstone research funding are due at 5 p.m. on Friday, September 27.

The meeting is adjourned.