Finance Committee on Oct. 16th, 2006

[Marie Lemay]

So, we have to adopt that mentality.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Thank you.

We continue with Madame Ablonczy.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate all of you being here.

I would like to ask you, Chuck, about the idea of this wind power production incentive, and also the renewable power production incentive. What I'd like to know is if you can tell us specifically how this would really ramp up production in these areas. Sometimes money is spent and incentives are given, but that doesn't really lead to a lot of bang for the buck. Can you tell us why it would?

[Chuck Szmurlo]

I'd like to point to the success of the wind power production incentive, which has gone from non-existent in Canada six or seven years ago to the point at which it is a rapidly growing business here today, with a potential to become a significant power producer. We would hope we would just have a constancy and a continuation of the wind power production incentive, which has proven successful up to now. I believe that if it were in place over the next few years, it could bring wind power up to the level of a meaningful producer.

Similarly, I think fuel cells, for instance, which use the electrochemical conversion of natural gas rather than the combustion of it, would benefit from a similar program. Fuel cells are probably where wind power was fifteen or twenty years ago. A program that I believe has had demonstrated success, if it were applied to fuel cells, would lead to a similarly successful stimulus for fuel cell development.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Can you give us some figures? You say “a significant power producer in wind power”. How significant? What's the increase?

[Chuck Szmurlo]

I believe wind power could become 10% of the country's generation potential perhaps over the next twenty years, which would be approximately a twenty-fold increase over what it is now.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

And fuel cells?

[Chuck Szmurlo]

I think fuel cells have even a greater percentage long term. Again, fuel cells are perhaps fifteen to twenty years behind where wind is today, but because the stationary fuel cells that we're developing can utilize the existing natural gas infrastructure rather than a new hydrogen infrastructure or an intermittent renewable source like the wind, there is actually the potential for greater than a 10% contribution of power generation over the long term. But again, reaching that 10% level would probably occur in the context of twenty years or so.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

So it's the same as the wind power.

[Chuck Szmurlo]

I believe it could be greater than the wind power, because it is not dependent upon the intermittent nature of the wind and could be providing fuel continuously, rather than at roughly the 30% of capacity that wind power is capable of.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

You talked about 10% for wind power.

[Chuck Szmurlo]

Yes, I'm sorry. About 10% of the national power capacity could be available from wind. I was referring to wind's ability to produce. Its rated potential is about 30% of its rated capacity because of the intermittent nature of the wind. It simply doesn't blow at the same speed all the time.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

So just so I have some basis for contrast, if wind power could produce 10%, how much would you forecast that renewable power fuel cells would be able to contribute?

[Chuck Szmurlo]

I'd be giving you my personal estimate here, but I would say fuel cells would be able to contribute 15% over a comparable period.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

How many companies do you think are taking advantage of this or would potentially take advantage of this? You're one of the biggest and best known, but how big an industry is this now and how big could it potentially be?

[Chuck Szmurlo]

We've seen a lot of the major companies move into wind power. There are still a lot of very small entrepreneurial companies that are growing and joining the industry now. Our convention in Winnipeg later this month is going to have several hundred companies participating.

You're seeing major companies like Suncor, Enbridge, TransAlta, and Shell getting involved with wind power. You would see more of them come into it if there was a prospect for a stable investment climate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Thank you, sir.

We'll conclude with just a couple of questions from Mr. McCallum.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you. I just have one question for Mr. Sadik.

There has been a lot of talk about legislation on the environment, possibly very soon, if not today. My question to you is whether or not the David Suzuki Foundation has been consulted about this. Whether you have been or not, in terms of the general directions of this legislation, what would you consider it? Is it good news or bad news?

[Pierre Sadik]

As we've said over the past few weeks as details of the pending legislation have been leaked out, we're always glad to see a shift away from voluntary mechanisms, which is what the government has said it will do with this legislation. What does concern us is the considerable length of time this legislation might take to bring about the changes that are needed in the short term in terms of reducing emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants.

The other component that we've said worries us is the fact that with respect to greenhouse gases, at least, it sounds as though the legislation will have what's called a soft cap or an intensity type of...essentially a non-limit on greenhouse gases. It's an intensity target. What that simply means is that as production grows, greenhouse gas emissions can grow as well. That's an unorthodox way of controlling pollution. It's something we don't see governments doing in connection with, let's say, mercury or with sulphur dioxide or nitrogen oxide. There's always—

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

He's going to cut me off. Sorry.

I've heard that existing legislation provides all that's needed, or almost all that's needed, to regulate and that new legislation will simply produce unnecessary delay. Would you agree with that?

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

A brief response.

[Pierre Sadik]

That's what we've been saying in connection with the information we've heard about this legislation. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act, CEPA, has all the tools necessary in the tool kit for the government to act right now to reduce pollution.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Okay. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Thank you to all our witnesses today for your presentations and the time you've taken to be with us. We very much appreciate it. We'll invite you to be replaced at your seats by the next panel. Thank you again.

We'll suspend just briefly while our next panel joins us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

We will recommence.

Thank you, first of all, to our witnesses for being here. You have been gracious in preparing briefs, which have been forwarded to the committee. We thank you for that. You've also been asked to prepare your presentations and limit them to five minutes. I will give you a visual cue when a minute or less remains, and then we'll cut you off, as you've no doubt witnessed in the past. That is, of course, to allow for our panellists to exchange questions and comments with you thereafter.

We will commence with the representative from the Canadian Health Food Association, Valerie Bell.

Welcome, and five minutes are for you.