Evidence of meeting #138 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was fuels.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Davenport, Lib.
Thank you so much.
Thanks to all three presenters for their excellent presentations.
I'm going to start off with Ms. Baldwin.
I want to acknowledge that you mentioned there's a lack of access to broadband technology, and I think it's an important thing to note. I wouldn't mind if you could spend just a tiny bit, just because I don't have a lot of time.... Could you give me an example of a technology that we are sort of hindering farmers or agricultural workers from accessing that would be helpful for them in terms of reducing emissions? Could you just give us an example?
Director, Stakeholder Relations, Agricultural Institute of Canada
Of course. Take, for example, precision agriculture. You have farmers who are using technology like drones and low-orbit satellites to monitor their crop fields and to identify where they need a specific kind of fertilizer, where they need to harvest a week earlier, or where they need to apply water. Without broadband Internet and being able to connect all those dots, they're just going to continue using traditional farming techniques. If they had access to broadband Internet, then they would be able to use technology like precision agriculture.
Davenport, Lib.
What percentage would you say? This is a ballpark percentage—I'm not going to hold you to it—but would you say that about 50% don't have access to it? Would you say 80% or 20%? Give me a ballpark percentage.
Director, Stakeholder Relations, Agricultural Institute of Canada
I can't answer that directly. However, we do have stats that say that less than 50% of farmers have adopted technology on the farms. That might not be specifically related to broadband or to other things like that.
I think that in the infographic that was provided in our brief, there's some further information on that. I think it's on page 11 or page 10.
Davenport, Lib.
Thank you. I appreciate that.
I also very much appreciate your response to Mr. Warawa's question around a stick and that there are carrots around the carbon-pricing proposal that our government is talking about.
You've talked about how a carbon price is good if the revenue can be used to support the growth of the sector nationally. Can you maybe talk about how some of that revenue...? Can you give me some examples of how possibly those revenues can be used?
Director, Stakeholder Relations, Agricultural Institute of Canada
Sure. If we identify a specific percentage of the carbon tax.... This would be something that the policy-makers would have to determine, but for an industry such as biofuels—again, I'm going to use biofuels as an example here—if we delineated specific funds tied to the carbon tax that could be used to support that industry, it would undoubtedly grow.
I'm not sure if Mr. Hooper wants to add to that point.
Davenport, Lib.
You're saying that you could use some of those revenues to actually grow the biofuels sector and that this would be helpful.
Director, Stakeholder Relations, Agricultural Institute of Canada
That's just one example of a sector that could be supported.
Davenport, Lib.
Maybe I'll move over to Mr. Hooper.
I was part of the Ontario government a long time ago, in my youth, and I remember our talking about increasing ethanol in our fuels. I remember there being some concerns from a number of people that if we have more ethanol, we're using more land for corn. If more land is used for corn, there's less land for food, and if there's less turnover of land, it's bad for the land. There are all these kinds of side effects. It's kind of this cycle. I remember that as an argument. This is from over 10 years ago.
I wonder whether we've actually addressed some of those issues as we're trying to advocate for more advanced biofuels as part of the solution to actually reducing our overall carbon emissions. Can you maybe talk to that?
Director, Policy and Regulations, Advanced Biofuels Canada
Yes. There are two primary aspects that are being analyzed to address sustainability. One is the life-cycle carbon intensity. All fuels are compared across their full life cycle. Whether you're pumping oil out of the ground or growing crops or using forest residues, the systems are assessed from production all the way through to end use and then compared. That's given the metrics of all the energy and emissions related to the process.
Regarding sustainability, on the forestry side, we have forest certification standards, where Canada is a leader. I believe you heard from FPAC on that. We've done very well. Our agricultural systems are also very sustainable. They're not as advanced as certification systems. I believe you heard from the round table for sustainable crops. They can articulate the status of their work.
On biofuels, quite often we see measures like renewable biomass defined, so that we eliminate the use of high-risk biofuels. We're not cutting down rainforests. We're not harming peat-based lands. We're not filling in wetlands with high conservation value and things like that and expanding the use of agriculture into those areas.
Particular to Canada, our total agricultural land is in a slight decline. Over time, what we've been able to do with precision agriculture and better agronomics, like low-till and zero-till farming, is produce more from the same land base. That more goes into food, animal feed and industrial products, as well as energy products. Our systems are well measured and able to meet a certain amount of growth, in order to supply these low-carbon needs.
Davenport, Lib.
Just remind me, but it's my sense that most of the corn to produce ethanol is actually grown in Saskatchewan and Alberta.
Director, Policy and Regulations, Advanced Biofuels Canada
No. The corn is primarily grown in Ontario, with a little bit in Quebec. The ethanol in the Prairies is made primarily from wheat, but it can sometimes pull some corn into it.
Mr. John Aldag (Cloverdale—Langley City, Lib.)
Sorry, Julie, but that's the end of the six minutes.
Davenport, Lib.
That's it. Sorry I didn't get a question to the FCCC.
Thank you.
Mr. John Aldag (Cloverdale—Langley City, Lib.)
Now we go over to Monsieur Godin.
Conservative
Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Based on the testimony we have heard today and at other meetings, we can see that people on the ground are taking charge and launching initiatives to reduce our environmental footprint.
My first question is for you, Ms. Baldwin.
Unfortunately, since I had to go out I couldn't hear your remarks, but you talked about broadband in your responses, which I found interesting.
Given that there are several farmers in my riding, last-mile local broadband access, as it is known in this wonderful broadband world, is very important.
I would like to inform you that the Auditor General recently tabled a report indicating that the current government had committed money to invest, develop and implement the broadband system. However, the Auditor General also told us that the money stayed on the shelf because no programs were ever put in place. I therefore believe the funding is available. Considering the size of the deficits created by this government over the past three years, I'm not so sure a carbon tax is the solution.
You earlier replied to one of my colleagues that you supported the carbon tax on condition that it would be used for farmers.
I would like to hear what you have to say on this because, of course, there is the money, but, as we all know, when a tax is added, it is often not used for the primary purpose it was created for.
I would like to know what you have to say about that, Ms. Baldwin.
December 11th, 2018 / 4:35 p.m.
Director, Stakeholder Relations, Agricultural Institute of Canada
Thank you very much for your question.
You're right. The Auditor General's report did paint a disappointing picture of the state of Canada's connectivity in rural and remote areas. We recognize that the government has taken some action on this. There was an FPT that was set up and they had launched a public consultation. However, the reality is that we need to see this moving from the consultation stage to the implementation stage, so that we can see farmers in your riding—the last mile, as you referred to it—actually being able to use some of these technologies that can help them meet their emissions targets.
Does that answer your question?
Conservative
Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
I don't agree with you. A carbon tax is not the solution. Four and a half billion was spent to buy an already built pipeline. Maybe this money could have been invested. Furthermore, there is money available in the government's budget program. It's a matter of will.
From what I understand, you need money to meet very specific objectives and needs, but you're suggesting the carbon tax is the way to go. I don't see why you would be suggesting this to the government.
Director, Stakeholder Relations, Agricultural Institute of Canada
Thank you again for the question.
We're supportive of the carbon tax, in terms of being able to use that carbon tax revenue to support the growth of clean technologies for use in the agricultural sector. Maybe the comments were taken a bit out of context by some of your colleagues. I'm certainly happy to follow up off-line, if there's a further conversation to be had on that topic.
Conservative
Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
Thank you.
My next question is for Mr. Coulter.
Mr. Coulter, I would like to know how your business model works. If I understand correctly, your agency makes agreements with farmers. You manage their land and sell credits to businesses whose environmental footprint exceeds acceptability levels. Is this correct?
Conservative
Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
Okay.
Let's say I have a polluting company that is not compliant and doesn't toe the line, if I may use that expression. If I want to buy credits, I call you and you let me know how many credits I need.
How do you estimate the value of that and how much goes to the farmer?
Vice-President, First Carbon Credits Corporation
We work off an 80:20 formula, so we retained 20% for our administrative costs and 80% went to the farmer. Ultimately, the credit accrues back to the land, so the owners of the credit are the landowners themselves. Therefore, because they are the owners, they get the majority of the revenue. That's how we worked our business model.
They asserted to us that their practice was in accordance with the government regulations around the protocol. Then we had to verify and validate their assertion to us, and ensure that our customer, the large final emitter, was satisfied that the offsets we offered to them would be acceptable by the government, as a true-up compliance offset that they could use for compliance purposes to satisfy their obligation to the government under the cap-and-trade program.