Environment Committee on Dec. 12th, 2017

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Thank you so much.

Mr. Sopuck.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Thanks.

I'm going to focus my comments on adaptation, mitigation, and building resilience. One of the things I'm always shocked about when I read these kinds of documents and hear this testimony is the short shrift that's given to natural or ecological infrastructure.

Mr. Jones, you mentioned it once, which I was pleased to see. In your presentation, Ms. Henry, you talked about green infrastructure and natural infrastructure or what I call ecological infrastructure. Constructed wetlands are not even mentioned. I came across a study that was done in 2012 called “Comparing carbon sequestration in temperate freshwater wetland communities”. In conclusion, researchers suggest that temperate freshwater wetlands may have a significant part to play as carbon sinks in offsetting greenhouse gas emissions.

Mr. Jones, if I can get a short answer on this, you mentioned once about investing in natural infrastructure. Will this be a significant investment or is this just paying lip service to our natural and ecological infrastructure that we so desperately depend upon?

[Matt Parry, Director General, Strategic Policy Directorate, Department of the Environment]

I'll start, and Matt, feel free to jump in.

It is a very important area in adaptation and resilience. It was an important theme in the work in the lead-up to the pan-Canadian framework. Under the investing in Canada plan, there's a green infrastructure fund that includes eligibility for a natural infrastructure. Again, as the member noted, there are multiple benefits in sequestration, building resilience, and protecting drinking water, as examples. It was raised consistently in the context of the adaptation discussion.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Parry, I really appreciate the point you made about the multiple benefits of ecological infrastructure. For example, if we make a building more energy efficient, it's more energy efficient, but wetland conservation, preservation, restoration, that does all the things you talk about. I think that's a very important point to get on the record.

As we move forward in this direction, I would strongly urge you to give natural or ecological infrastructure far greater weight than it has now. Again, if you look at a map of Canada, the urban areas are where most of the people live, but Canada is mostly a large natural or modified landscape that supports us all.

I come from Manitoba, where flooding is a very serious issue. Water management is becoming extremely important. I urge all of you to read the new Manitoba climate change and green plan. Manitoba put a significant section in there on the conservation of natural infrastructure, primarily wetlands. Water management is so extremely important to us.

Ms. Henry, I come from a large rural area. Wood heat is really important. A recent StatsCan report said that 13% of Canadian households heat primarily with wood, as do I on my farm. Why is residential wood heat given such short shrift in Canada's climate plan? Wood heat is carbon neutral.

[Joyce Henry]

Sorry, I don't have a specific answer on that.

[Matt Jones]

I think the climate change plan was intended to be broad. It covers a number of emission sources.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

I didn't see wood heat mentioned once in either document.

[Matt Jones]

No, it's not. I think we were focusing primarily on the largest sources of emissions, mostly from the industrial side and electricity sector. When it comes to buildings, our approach has been to get at it through the building code, which is seen as a broad opportunity to get at all of the sources of emissions associated with the building stock.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Excuse me but from an adaptation standpoint, wood heat is carbon neutral. With the serious decline in our commercial forest sector, primarily the pulp and paper industry, Canada actually has a surplus of wood right now.

For example, in the forest company that I worked for—the company closed down 10 years ago—we had an annual allowable cut of 400,000 cubic metres. Those 400,000 cubic metres are not being harvested nowadays. I understand Wisconsin has wood-fired power plants in place right now.

What would be your view to having a good long look at what wood energy could do for Canada's energy mix?

[John Moffet]

Maybe I could jump in.

It won't completely answer your question. The clean fuel standard will establish requirements to reduce the life-cycle carbon intensity of all fuels, thereby creating incentives for fuel mixing and fuel switching. This may create incentives for increased use of biomass, including wood chips, waste wood products from pulp and paper mills, etc.

We're in fairly detailed discussions with the pulp and paper sector about what those opportunities are.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

The pulp and paper sector right now, I think, is carbon neutral. The firm that I worked for, our boilers were fired by wood chips as well as the sludge from our wastewater treatment plants. I think that the forest industry is quite a ways ahead.

My last question relates to wind—

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Mr. Sopuck, I'm so sorry but—

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Oh, I thought it was a yellow card.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

It was, but I was turning it around to the red card. My apologies. You were right on the button when you looked.

Thank you.

Mr. Amos.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you to our witnesses. I appreciate the hard work that's being done across the board in our civil service to put this pan-Canadian approach into action.

We've heard of the clean fuel regulation. I'd like to hear more about the other regulatory measures that are coming down the pike, that are being consulted upon. Can you get a bit into the details of some of the issues that represent public policy challenges in relation to those regulations?

[John Moffet]

Well, the federal complementary regulations are the two electricity regulations that I just referred to, and those are essentially finalized. We plan to publish those in a matter of weeks or, at most, a month or two.

We plan to publish the methane regulations in late winter. Again, those have largely been finalized and are going through an approval process. We have some regulations regulating HFCs from products. I don't have all the details on those, but again, those are fairly well advanced.

The two additional major federal regulations that we're working on are the clean fuel standard—and those are, of course, at a fairly early stage of development where we will be issuing a regulatory framework document, a broad description of the approach, in a matter of days—and the federal backstop carbon pricing system. I suspect you know that has two components: one is a levy, and the other is a regulatory regime for large emitters. We've been working on the development of those regulations, and those regulations will apply to all large emitters in any backstop jurisdiction. We plan to publish a regulatory framework document early in the new year, and we'll be looking for input on those regulations through the course of the winter of 2018.

There's another suite of regulations that are new but that are being updated. Those are all the vehicle and engine regulations. We have work under way on updating the light-duty regulations, paying close attention to what's happening in the United States at the federal level, but also at the state level. That's a really interesting dynamic that we have to pay attention to.

We also have a commitment to introduce heavy-duty vehicle regulations, so tailpipe emission regulations for heavy-duty vehicles. Those are a little farther into the future. The analytical work is under way, but again, we have to pay close attention to what's happening south of the border.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you.

My next question is for the NRCan officials.

The constituents of Pontiac relied for many, many years on the forestry industry. Times have changed somewhat, particularly in the western part of my riding. However, there is great hope and expectation that the clean energy funds that have been announced will enable the reinvention, if you will, of the forestry industry.

I wonder if you can speak to some of the projects that have already been financed by NRCan in the forestry sector and how those relate to clean energy outcomes.

[Frank DesRosiers]

Mr. Chair and committee members, we share an interest around diversifying revenue sources for the forestry sector, both in terms of geography and products. Bioenergy in particular seems to be one of the most promising areas. We're also looking at tall wood structures and other opportunities like this.

In the bioenergy space, we've had a number of very successful projects, looking at waste products in particular, whether they're wood chips or bark that is currently left in the forest without any use. We've been working both on the R and D and administration projects to try to troubleshoot those technologies, so that they can be scaled up to full commercial activities.

I don't have the exhaustive list of projects, whether under IFIT or other projects like the one we're describing, but I would draw the interest of committee members to the clean growth program we just announced three weeks ago. It's a $155-million program that is targeting energy, forestry, and mining. Bioenergy would be very much in this scope.

In the context of this program, we've had discussions with provinces that share our interest in advancing bioenergy solutions. Quebec, Ontario, B.C., and Alberta have project proposals that are slated to be sent our way by early February, so we'll be able to then analyze those. We hope to be able to leverage each other's resources to advance on those projects. The timing could frankly not be better to advance it, given, as you know, the trade dynamic with the U.S.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

That sounds like there's some good news there for our rural communities and our resource-dependent communities. I'm looking forward to seeing a biomass conversion centre project being advanced from the Pontiac sector of my riding.

Anyway, thank you for that update.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Okay, that's great.

You're next, Monsieur Godin.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here this morning.

I have heard some very positive things and other things that I am inclined to question. I will give the benefit of the doubt.

Ms. Henry, Mr. DesRosiers was supposed to give the presentation, but unfortunately the traffic and the snowstorm changed the plans this morning. Regardless, your presentation contains the following statement: “Canada's vision is to balance economic growth with environmental protection”.

I will use this premise to talk to you about a very specific case in my riding. There is a company that manufactures pipes in the city of Portneuf, in the beautiful riding of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier. Unfortunately, this company manufactures pipes that contain asbestos. I understand that we have to make changes and adopt clean technologies, but we still have to respect economic development.

I used Ms. Henry's premise, but my question will probably be for one of the representatives of the Department of the Environment.

This company has been doing research and development for a year and a half to find an alternative. It is full of good intentions. It has found its product and is ready to make the change. However, it must be understood that the problem in this line of business is certification and the time to obtain it.

We say we want to promote economic development while improving the environmental impact. That said, a law that will come into force on January 1, 2018, will force this company to cease operation, given that the prototype of its product is not accepted or certified because of acceptance timeline for the building.

I contacted the Department of the Environment to request a waiver. So, I'm taking the opportunity this morning to illustrate a very particular situation. In fact, this company is not the only one in Canada experiencing this problem. We're talking about asbestos here, but it could be other new technologies that companies would have to comply with, which is perfectly legitimate. Nobody is acting in bad faith, in this case. However, 20 jobs will be lost in Portneuf at a very successful business in my riding.

My question is for Mr. Jones.

Could you please tell me how you manage this type of situation? You understand that no one has ill intentions. But we're facing a very particular situation. I think we have to very actively find solutions.

[John Moffet]

Thank you for the question.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Ah, it's Mr. Moffet who will respond.

[John Moffet]

Yes. May I answer in English?

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Yes, absolutely. I'm used to it.