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.
Liberal
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
By putting that market-based system in place, it incentivized incredible innovation in Alberta, which is now leading many parts of the country. It has changed the farming practices that are now happening in many parts of the country, whether they have a cap-and-trade system or not.
Alberta is the only province that actually has it, but that incentive created that innovation. Now they recognize that not only was it a carbon sink, but it's really good farming practice. It has created a level of productivity that was previously unheard of.
Vice-President, First Carbon Credits Corporation
That's correct.
Also, I had a lot of talk with biofuel refineries, a lot of Hutterite colonies that wanted to get into biodigesters. There were a lot of different innovations that came up as a result of land use change, both in the agricultural and forestry sectors.
I spent a lot of time talking with first nations up in the Treaty 8 area, as well, about how they could participate and the ways that they could participate in the marketplace. There was exponential innovation that occurred as a result of what we started back in 2007.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
If I heard you correctly, you said that it reduced erosion, increased water retention, which increased water quality in the area as well, and created a higher-quality product and higher levels of productivity overall.
Really, it's a very good story all around for the ag sector at the end of the day.
Vice-President, First Carbon Credits Corporation
Yes. That's what we want to emphasize with farmers in particular, that not only would they get an additional revenue stream from the carbon trade, but they would also get increased productivity so that they'd have better yields.
That was proven out in a number of studies. It really was a win-win for everybody all around.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
Thank you so much.
I'd like to go over now to the Agriculture Institute and the biofuels sector. You raised an interesting point when you talked about the fall fiscal update and the capital acceleration that is now happening on farm equipment, and I would assume on new capital infrastructure—any green energy technology—so that would affect the biofuels sector as well.
Also, you mentioned broadband technology. They've tripled the level of acceleration for broadband, and networking technology also.
Would you say that was a positive news story? How would you say that's now going to incentivize farmers and the biofuels sector? Do you think that's going to accelerate their plans for moving forward?
I'll start with Kristin, and then maybe, Mr. Hooper, you could comment as well, please.
Director, Stakeholder Relations, Agricultural Institute of Canada
Sure. Thank you.
We certainly support some of the measures from the fall economic update that you mentioned in your question. Speaking specifically to the incentivization point, we have to look at it both from incentivizing research and incentivizing the early adoption of those technologies. It's not one or the other. We need to do both to bridge the gap between the two. I think we're stepping in the right direction, but I think we need to step faster, if that's the proper analogy.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
There is $1 billion going into agricultural innovation as well.
Director, Stakeholder Relations, Agricultural Institute of Canada
Yes, absolutely.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
It's being invested in that research.
Mr. Hooper, do you have a final comment?
Director, Policy and Regulations, Advanced Biofuels Canada
I think the three measures that are most important in the fall fiscal update are the accelerated capital cost allowance for manufacturing, and our understanding is that biofuel facilities qualify as manufacturing. That's a positive step. We're hoping provinces will step up with their piece to mirror that on the ACCA deduction. The clean energy definitions that are used in classes 43.1 and 43.2 are not necessarily going to create eligibility for biofuels, so we're looking more closely at that. The accelerated investment provision is of benefit. I think it goes up the whole value chain for us in terms of the supply.
December 11th, 2018 / 4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Langley—Aldergrove, CPC
Thank you to the witnesses for being here.
I find this incredibly interesting and exciting from the many years that I was parliamentary secretary for environment under a previous government.
There's a lot of energy, a lot of focus, a lot of investment in partnering with stakeholders for us to move in this direction. We required a certain percentage, an increasing percentage of the fuel at gas stations to be renewable fuels, investing in cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel using our biomass, so it's exciting to see this growth.
Mr. Hooper, last week we heard from the canola growers that 70% of the world's supply of canola is grown in Canada, and we export 90% of it. From my reading, canola is a perfect candidate to be a biofuel for biodiesel. Is that correct?
Langley—Aldergrove, CPC
We can do much better using some of that canola oil instead of exporting it.
We also heard from the canola growers that they were very concerned about the government policies that could make us not competitive anymore. I asked what it was and they said the carbon tax. They also hinted that canola can be grown in other jurisdictions, like the United States. We need to use our technology, and you highlighted world leadership. They highlighted that too.
Ms. Baldwin, thank you for being here. On the carbon tax, the mandate of your association includes influencing public policy, promoting and facilitating careers in agricultural research, but I want to focus on influencing public policy.
If the agricultural industry is concerned about the carbon tax and the impact that it's having on that industry, and are talking about possibly relocating, which would be horrific, more job losses.... Their concern is that they've achieved far beyond the Paris targets—a 20% reduction by 2020. They've reduced their greenhouse footprint, their carbon output, beyond the 2030 target of 30%. They've cut it in half.
They've said the government uses carrots and sticks and what they're using right now is just a stick. Even those who have achieved the goal of reducing their footprint feel they should be exempt from the carbon tax. I think that's reasonable. We heard the same thing from the aviation industry: WestJet, Air Canada and others. They've reduced their carbon output far in excess of what's required by the Paris Agreement.
Do you think it's reasonable that the government keeps whacking with the stick even though you've achieved the target and gone far beyond? Would it be a reasonable policy that you can aim for, and if you achieve that should you then be exempt? It would encourage others to also reduce their carbon footprint. Do you think your association could support that as a policy?
Director, Stakeholder Relations, Agricultural Institute of Canada
I can certainly see merit in your proposal; however, our sector is supportive of using the revenue generated by the carbon tax to support our clean growth sector and specifically the agricultural component thereof. I'm not sure I can be fully supportive of the statement that you just made but thank you for the suggestion. I can certainly see merit in it.
Langley—Aldergrove, CPC
Would your association support continuing a carbon tax even though you have reduced your carbon output?
Director, Stakeholder Relations, Agricultural Institute of Canada
We're supportive of the carbon tax so long as we're using the revenue to support the growth and development of our sector nationally.
Langley—Aldergrove, CPC
This is a question for both of you.
In British Columbia the carbon tax is not revenue neutral. It's collected at $35 a tonne and on April 1 it goes up to $40 a tonne.
Do you know what that equates to for the Canadian taxpayer? When they get their carbon tax bill for the energy they use to heat their home, natural gas, do you know what percentage it is, not $35 a tonne going to $40 a tonne, but what it costs them? What percentage is it, 5%, 10%, or 15%? Do you have any idea?
Director, Stakeholder Relations, Agricultural Institute of Canada
I'm sorry. I do not.
Langley—Aldergrove, CPC
It's 112%, and that's not reasonable.
Mr. Chair, there are some very important questions that we need to deal with. I would like to move now to the motion that was before this committee. I have time to introduce the motion and then I would like to speak to the motion.
I'd like to make a motion to resume the debate that was adjourned on November 22. That motion was:
That,
(a) the Minister of Environment and Climate Change appear before the Committee to discuss the Committee’s study of Clean Growth and Climate Change in Canada: Forestry, Agriculture and Waste; and,
(b) in the event the Minister appears before the Committee with regard to Supplementary Estimates (A), 2018-19, the request in (a) be considered to have been fulfilled.
I am moving to resume debate on that motion and I'd like to speak to it.