Science and Research Committee on Sept. 24th, 2024

[Christa Seaman]

In fact, you can look to Quebec for some examples of significant technological advancement. Polystyvert is a company recycling polystyrene and doing it at significantly lower greenhouse gas emissions. We have Loop Industries as well—

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

Ms. Seaman, I am not sure the sense of my question is getting across.

I want to know whether you, as a representative of your association, propose that the government use certain types of technology to the detriment of others or promote other ones?

[Christa Seaman]

No. As an industry association, we don't support one technology over another.

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

Great.

Ms. Seaman, I'm going to quote from a brief that your association submitted to the Standing Committee on Finance in August 2011. Its conclusion was as follows:

New sources of feedstock such as shale gas promise a once in a generation opportunity for growth. We need to seize this with new investment to create wealth and jobs and strengthen and grow our manufacturing base.

This is the brief you submitted to the Standing Committee on Finance in August 2011.

You mentioned Quebec, and I thank you for that. Since August 2022, Quebec has banned hydrocarbon research and production, including for shale gas, for the first time in 10 years.

I would like you to explain how it is that you told me a few seconds ago that your association makes no recommendations on the development of new technologies.

I just quoted a report that you tabled. The report says the exact opposite and runs completely counter to the will of the Government of Quebec.

I would like to hear your comments on that.

[Christa Seaman]

Thank you for your question—

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

Give a very short answer, please.

[Christa Seaman]

I was not with the association in 2011. I'm sorry. I cannot respond to that, but I can look into it for you.

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

Yes. I would appreciate it if you could send me a written answer. That would be good.

Thank you, Ms. Seaman.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

Thank you.

Now we will have MP Blaney for five minutes, please.

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

Thank you so much, Chair, and thank you to all the folks who are here testifying today.

I would like to as well speak to the University of Guelph. I really appreciated your interventions today.

I'm just wondering what the biggest scientific and engineering challenges are in creating biodegradable materials that can compete with traditional plastics in terms of cost, durability and functionality.

[Dr. Amar Mohanty]

That's an excellent question.

Many people think that biodegradable plastic is more costly than petroleum-based plastic. That is true, but in my opinion, or scientifically, we must consider the end product. Suppose we make a product, and the product is costlier than a petroleum-based product, so nobody is going to take that. That's not going to be accepted by society. In my opening remarks, I told you that currently, in order to support the circular economy, some agro-residues or food waste residues and some of the waste residues can be incorporated into the plastic so that the final cost of the product will be cost competitive and will still be green, and that is accepted.

Whatever research we do in the centre, anything we commercialize today, there is no cost penalty. This is supporting a circular economy, because we are incorporating agro-residues or some food residues into our biodegradable, costly plastic and making the final product cost competitive, and it is going to the market.

One of the biodegradable plastics, as told, has PBAT, which is polybutylene adipate-co-terephthalate. It costs four times more than the petroleum-based plastic. That cost has reduced currently. Why is that happening? There is a demand for biodegradable plastic around the world. For example, if biodegradable materials will be produced on a large scale, you can have cost competitiveness. It's good news that currently growth in biodegradable plastic is about 22.6% versus 5% for non-biodegradable petroleum-based plastics.

Biodegradable plastic is like a small child, while petroleum plastic is like a mature person, so we must take how old that technology is in the current scenario of climate change and the circular economy. There is a big demand for biodegradable plastic going on, so the final cost is going to reduce with the increase in capacity and with the incorporation of innovation by combining some biocomposite materials, taking some residues and putting that inside the bioplastic, making it cost competitive at the end.

That is one answer I can give you.

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

Thank you for that.

I heard earlier, from a member's question, this concern that all of a sudden there'll be a piece of legislation and all plastic will be turned off immediately. In the scientific world that you're talking about, is there any concern that this will happen?

[Dr. Amar Mohanty]

Truly speaking, scientific research tells me that with urbanization and the population explosion, we'll certainly need more plastics. We have to make plastic.

As I said in my opening remarks, current plastic production is 400 million metric tons. It will be one billion metric tons by 2050. It's not whether plastic production will go up; it's how to manage the plastic in this world. That is the biggest issue.

Everybody talks about recycling and the properties degrading, but in another way, we must talk about the final product, as I talked about. Suppose you take recycled plastic, which is a low-value product, incorporate about 20% or 30% of that, and make composite materials by adding some fillers into that. Your final composite will be much higher in cost than even your virgin plastic. That is why this type of innovation is taking place. People are moving in that direction. That is how the world will move on.

Every product has some positive points and negative points, but fundamentally, based on science, plastic production will go on. During the Second World War there was a plastics boom. This was because of the scarcity of natural materials. People had earlier been using natural resources for all their packaging; the Second World War was the mother of invention for plastics. Since then, people have not moved back. It made life so comfortable. The problem that's happening now is around the greenhouse effect and the non-degradability.

Having said that, science is moving in really a tremendous way. Recycling technology is modifying it—

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

Thank you.

[Dr. Amar Mohanty]

—and upcycling is going on.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

That's our time.

[Dr. Amar Mohanty]

Chemical recycling is an another area we're moving in.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

Thank you.

We will now go to our second round, also shortened by a minute.

MP Viersen, you have four minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses for being here.

Earlier, Mr. Bali, when my colleague from the Bloc mentioned picking technologies rather than goals, you stuck up your hand as though you wanted to respond. I was hoping you could give us an example of one of these, of the government picking a technology rather than an end goal.

[Atul Bali]

I think the government should not be technology-neutral. I think the government should base its decisions on science. Science will decide which technologies to choose, based on complete transparency, in terms of only two metrics: What are the greenhouse gas emissions in making that plastic, and what are the end-of-life emissions at the time of disposal of that plastic? Are there any more smart ways in science to deal with both these metrics? There are international standards—they don't have to be reinvented—that can actually speak to this.

I think the government should follow science, and follow science based on internationally acknowledged standards like ISO 14044 or the carbon-14 carbon dating system. These are long-established standards.

That's my view.

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

Ms. Seaman, do you want to add anything to that? You were nodding along.

[Christa Seaman]

Thank you.

I just want to add that I agree. Technology neutrality goes hand in hand with a life-cycle approach. When you look at the waste hierarchy as well, you should reduce first. Not everything should be plastic, so don't make it plastic, but use a life-cycle approach so that you are using the lowest-impact material for that application. Let science basically drive the technology forward.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Bali, I'm just trying to get clear on some of the definitions. Does “bioplastic” mean that it's biodegradable, or does it mean that it comes from, like, a fava bean or a chickpea or some source? That's kind of confusing to me. I've talked to farmers who've told me that their product is being used for bioplastic, which is different from what I was necessarily thinking about.

[Atul Bali]

That is a good question, and you're very right. There is a lot of confusion around the terminology.

To be perfectly clear, there are examples of fossil-based plastics—100% fossil-based—that are fully biodegradable, completely compostable. PBAT is one example. On the contrary, there is an example of a completely bio-based plastic that is not going to ever biodegrade, like biopolyethylene made by Braskem, so the word “bioplastic” should be avoided.

Plastic should be categorized into any of two categories. One, are these plastics certified compostable as a composite or as a plastic? This means zero microplastics and complete material circularity going into compost. Two, are they not degradable, meaning that they will pollute the environment unless there is effective recycling and reuse of those plastics?

I think “bioplastics” is terminology that should be avoided. We should call them either “compostable biocomposites” or “non-degradable plastics”.

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

We can get methane gas from a whole number of sources, and that doesn't change what methane gas is.