Evidence of meeting #16 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was biodiesel.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Carol Skelton Conservative Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK
The Canadian Cattlemen's Association has concerns about the livestock industry and the use of their feedstocks to go into production of biodiesel and bioethanol and everything. Would you gentlemen support a biofuel policy that is based on market signals? That's what they're suggesting, rather than the content mandate that we've proposed now. Would you agree?
4:30 p.m.
President, Canadian Bioenergy Corporation
If I interpreted the question correctly, you're asking whether we would move ahead on the blend levels that we're proposing right now.
4:30 p.m.
President, Canadian Bioenergy Corporation
We would, and I would actually, in the case of biodiesel, take the blend level up to 5% by 2015.
February 25th, 2008 / 4:30 p.m.
Second Vice-President, Fédération des producteurs de cultures commerciales du Québec
In my opinion, as the ethanol industry is not yet fully developed in Canada, there are many fewer by-products for animal feed. There is a scarcity. If we increase the rate of production, we will have more spent grain, which would reduce the cost of animal food. One of the reasons why the construction is not progressing quickly is that the by-products are not there in sufficient quantity to feed all the marketplace. In Quebec, we see that. There is a shortage of spent grain, and consumers want more. The plant is working at capacity and cannot provide all the spent grain that is needed. One of the most important elements when we look at ethanol, particularly grain-based ethanol, would be the by-products, including spent grain, and there is currently a shortage of it in Quebec.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
4:30 p.m.
NDP
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
Thank you.
We have tackled this from the point of view of the Canadian farmer. I think the consensus is there that in general it's supportive of supporting farmers.
Mr. Thomson, you mentioned that this could be an insurance against a drop in prices in the future. The first thing that comes to my mind is that apparently not a lot of farmers are buying into the co-ops now because they have all these prices in the food aspect. The minister was worried about that.
I'm wondering, if you don't have people coming on board, does that mean we have to import? That's the first thing.
The other thing I'd like to raise is a concern that I and many other people in Canada have. We mentioned that it's a critical time, and we have to do it right, and the financial markets are there. I understand all of that. At the same time, we're getting a message from Europe and the United States--and you mentioned OECD countries--that perhaps we should slow down a bit and see exactly which direction we're going in.
For example, on January 21, 2008, the United Kingdom called for a five-year moratorium on biofuels. The environmental audit committee concluded that:
The Government and EU should not have pursued targets to increase the use of biofuels in the absence of robust sustainability standards and mechanisms to prevent damaging land use change.
In February of this year, a dozen U.S. biofuel scientists are petitioning U.S. legislators to revise biofuel mandates. I'll quote the following for you:
The study said that after taking into account expected worldwide land-use changes, corn-based ethanol, instead of reducing greenhouse gases by 20 per cent, will increases it by 93 per cent compared to using gasoline over a 30-year period. Biofuels from switchgrass, if they replace croplands and other carbon-absorbing lands, would result in 50 per cent more greenhouse gas emissions, the researchers concluded.
They go on further to say:
We should be focusing on our use of biofuels from waste products...such as garbage, which would not result in changes in agricultural land use.... And you have to be careful how much you require. Use the right biofuels, but don't require too much too fast. Right now we're making almost exclusively the wrong biofuels.
So I think maybe the debate should be centred around the right versus the wrong. As someone observing this, I see that there's a lot of potential to use the right biofuels. We've talked about that with the biomass from waste. We've talked about that with especially the two types of research going on with regard to the biomass residue, the bois usagé.
I'd like to have some comments on that. I'll stop here, but overshadowing this whole debate we have food, and food versus fuel.
Mr. Thomson.
4:35 p.m.
President, Canadian Bioenergy Corporation
Thank you.
That is an elegant summary of the challenges we face.
I have three points. On your reference to the European Commission's biofuels directive that was released in January, we studied that closely and we studied it quickly. It has obviously substantial implications for Canadian biodiesel, in the case of our industry, to the extent that a fair bit of biodiesel and biodiesel feedstocks, namely canola, are shipped from Canada to Europe right now. The Europeans were really targeting a very specific set of criteria they would consider to be unsustainable. They would target palm from recently deforested areas and places of high biodiversity. They would target soybean that was grown in Brazil or Argentina from lands that really are grassland and are fallow and would be taken into production, hence you would lose the carbon sinks in those.
I think you need to look very carefully. I concur with you. I don't think very many people in this industry got into it to see the result of their work be a destruction of habitat. Canadian-produced feedstocks on the biodiesel side will more than match the criteria the EU is setting up. We will not be taking grassland under cultivation to expend that. If you look at the Canola Council of Canada's website and information they put out, there are advances in agronomy, in yield science, in crop science, that will be able to deliver the increase in oil that's required for a biodiesel mandate. We produce 9 million to 10 million tonnes of oilseed, of canola, a year and we're going to be requiring about 900,000 tonnes, about 10% of that, to do the kind of crop we need for the renewable fuel standard.
We really do need to consider Canada. I am aware of this all the time. We get the broad international signals about going slowly on biofuels and we broadbrush Canada. We would be bringing about a very unfortunate situation if we were not to consider what Canada has. Canada's crops will favour very well under international sustainability criteria. We know that from participating in it.
I have one last comment on the topic. As I sit beside this high-definition television with its flat-screen panel, I don't think we said 20 years ago we were going to hold on cathode ray tubes because something better is down the road. Everybody who has studied the adoption of new technologies or, in the case of new biofuels, new fuels has said you have to have an industry on whose shoulders to stand. If we hold off on the first generation, it will deter the adoption of the really smart biofuels that we all agree are not going to compete with food and won't compromise agricultural areas, as an example.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Thank you.
Time has, unfortunately, expired.
Mr. Boshcoff, the floor is yours.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Boshcoff Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
To the speakers who presented thus far, do you see any parts of the bill that have to have some major amendments, and at which stage of concurrence would you say you are at, reading the bill as presented?
Perhaps, Monsieur....
4:35 p.m.
Director General, Fédération des producteurs de cultures commerciales du Québec
I can tell you quite honestly that the Fédération des producteurs de cultures commerciales du Québec has a rather general understanding of Bill C-33, which is intended to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
Our interest is more directly tied to everything that affects biofuels policy and that could promote the development of biofuels policy. As far as the specifics of the bill and the proposed amendment are concerned, they suit us overall and we do not really have any amendments or changes to propose.
4:40 p.m.
Regional Agrologist, Ducks Unlimited Canada
I'm afraid we haven't had a chance to fully review it and I can't offer you a well-informed comment right now. I apologize for that.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Boshcoff Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
Could I ask you as a representative of Ducks Unlimited? We're speaking specifically to the bill, and--I'm trying to be polite here--if you came to us to talk about the bill and didn't quite know about it....You are a witness, so....
4:40 p.m.
Regional Agrologist, Ducks Unlimited Canada
I realize that and I apologize. I haven't read the bill thoroughly enough to be able to comment.
In coming to provide testimony, we were trying to broaden the debate to include some discussion about habitat and bring that into the discussion about biofuels, because it does have a direct impact.
4:40 p.m.
President, Canadian Bioenergy Corporation
I fully support the bill as it stands, and I support it because I'm a pragmatist on such matters. The specific legislation and mechanisms that will govern percentages and compliances, etc., will be written into law under the auspices of the act. We are looking more at seeing movement rather than further amendment to it. We've been looking to either the Clean Air Act or CEPA as the mechanism by which the federal government can have the authority to legislate climate change gases. We, for the most part, are supportive of this.
It will never be perfect, but we look at this and say we can work with it. And if we can work with Environment Canada and NRCan and those who will write this legislation, we support it on that basis.
4:40 p.m.
Professor, Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Sherbrooke
I think it's a good step in the right direction, and we will see. We never know. When projects of law go into effect, it's their application that brings the nitty gritty. I think that will be the case, but I'm convinced that Canada is moving in the right direction.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Boshcoff Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
I think the next presenters are in the audience, and perhaps they can prepare for that same question eventually.
Thank you.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative