Natural Resources Committee on Nov. 30th, 2020

[Dr. Werner Kurz]

The system has been in operation since 2006 for Canada to report to the United Nations Framework Convention. We generate the numbers and we transfer them to Environment and Climate Change Canada, which combines them with all other sectors.

The system combines computer models with measurements from the ground and remote sensing data on the area affected by fire and insects, harvesting, etc. We combine all that to estimate the net carbon update, the net balance of emissions and removals.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you for that.

You mentioned that there's a number of different ways this is measured from the ground and I assume from aerial views or satellites as well. Could you speak a little more to that?

[Dr. Werner Kurz]

Yes. The challenge is that it is very expensive to measure a plot on the ground and to have them distributed across the country. In order to get an estimate of the entire area, we basically combine ground measurements with remote sensing from aircraft and from satellites, as well as computer models that help us keep track of the millions of pieces of information that we need to combine to arrive at these estimates.

But in principle, what we do is we estimate, for every hector of forest in the managed forest of Canada, its age, its species, its rate of growth and the impacts that affect its ability to grow, whether that's the spruce beetle, the mountain pine beetle, wildfires, thinning or harvesting. We also track the rate of regrowth. Therefore, the carbon balance can be reported and stratified by different sectors.

There's one other important aspect, which is that the harvested wood products that we extract from the forests are going into a wide range of uses. We also have models that keep track of the carbon storage in harvested wood products, whether that's buildings or bioenergy, and we track the substitution benefits, not for reporting purposes, but for the estimation of alternative mitigation strategies.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

That is very interesting. You mentioned that in your supporting presentation with the chart that compared the different products that can be produced using this.

I am curious. The one you mentioned that has the greatest potential for capturing and storing carbon for the long term was using wood in buildings. I'm just curious whether using wood in this manner would actually capture and sequester carbon for longer than in some forests.

[Dr. Werner Kurz]

That very much depends on the impacts of climate change on the forest in particular. When we compare the situation on the west coast of British Columbia, where forests can grow to several hundred years of age, the building may not store the carbon longer than the forest would. However, as we have just witnessed in Washington, California and Oregon, even those forests are at risk from climate change.

Among the things we analyze with these tools are the trade-offs and the risks associated with retaining carbon in the forest or harvesting and making use of the carbon. It also differs greatly whether the wood is derived from a stand that was already killed by fire or insects, or from a stand that has the potential to continue to sequester carbon.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

That's a really important point, when you look at, for example, the impacts from the mountain pine beetle and other infestations. Related to that, do you think it would be feasible for Canada to report greenhouse gas emissions from wood products only at the time where carbon is actually emitted into the atmosphere rather than just the time of the harvest?

[Dr. Werner Kurz]

We actually report exactly that way. Since 2015, Canada, in compliance with the international reporting guidelines of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, reports emissions from harvested wood products where and when they occur.

That means that, if we export pallets to Europe, we in Canada must report the emissions associated with the burning of the pallets in Europe. If we export a long-lived wood product to the United States to build a mass timber building, we would need to report that when the emissions occur, which would be when that building is torn down or recycled, whatever its fate may be in the future.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Mr. Weiler. Unfortunately, that's all your time.

Next is Mr. Lemire for six minutes.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

From our witnesses' opening statements, it's clear what a difference the use of forest residue can make, especially in Quebec, when you consider natural gas development in western Canada. The potential economic and environmental benefits have been quantified. I think it would be useful to take a closer look at the possibilities.

My question is for Ms. Rancourt, from Vision Biomasse Québec.

Ms. Rancourt, you said that biomass could replace 400 million litres of fossil fuel a year and prevent 1 million metric tons in carbon dioxide equivalent emissions a year.

Which sectors could benefit from transitioning to the use of biomass, and how could the use of forest biomass support Canada's environmental efforts and help achieve the country's targets?

[Emmanuelle Rancourt]

Thank you for your question.

Since I gave the presentation, I am going to let my colleague Mr. Arsenault answer questions, if he doesn't mind.

[John Arsenault]

Absolutely.

As Mr. Kurz mentioned and as we pointed out in our analysis, one tonne of biomass used as an alternative to fossil fuels can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by approximately one tonne.

If we look at natural gas, a cubic metre of natural gas produces roughly the same amount of energy as a litre of oil. You could actually take the figures we mentioned in our presentation and apply them to natural gas and the result would be the same.

If you were planning to replace 400 million litres of oil, it would be the same as replacing 400 million cubic metres of natural gas. Economically and regionally speaking, though, natural gas does not have a place in Quebec's heating market.

For that reason, our aim is to provide an alternative to oil. That also applies in the rest of Canada. The significant use of oil could be replaced in the Atlantic provinces and in northern Ontario, and the benefits would be the same.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

As a member of Parliament, I am particularly interested in something. I am really glad that Mr. Kurz and Mr. Lefebvre are both with us to hear the answer.

How can the federal government support the forestry industry in the energy transition? I am referring to specific programs: loans, loan guarantees, R and D support, tax credits and the like.

The question is for either Ms. Rancourt or Mr. Arsenault.

[John Arsenault]

The federal government created Canada-wide programs to develop biomass in remote areas. They were implemented four or five years ago, but with mixed success. A few projects were brought forward. In fact, there was a recent news report that described a dozen projects that are being carried out across Canada.

There is a need to enhance these programs and increase their impact, particularly in remote areas. However, they could also be applied in areas that are not remote. I understand that the federal government has an interest in developing indigenous communities and very remote regions, but there are other regions of Canada that could also benefit. I told you about the Maritimes, where there is a high percentage of oil use. In Quebec, we still burn, year in and year out, close to a billion litres of heating oil; remote regions are certainly not the only areas where this is done.

Existing programs that support initiatives to convert heating systems to biomass should no doubt be enhanced. This conversion is the main barrier to biomass use as it represents a relatively large capital cost. Therefore, we need help to convert existing heating systems to biomass.

If the goal is to reduce greenhouse gases by 35%, 40%, 50% or even 100% by 2050, we must start now to change heating systems, which have a life span of 25 to 30 years. We must immediately begin to replace these systems with others that do not use fossil fuels.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you.

My final questions in this round will still be for you, Mr. Arsenault, from Vision Biomasse Québec.

According to data provided in the 2017 report “A Forest Bioeconomy Framework for Canada”, published by the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers, Canada has the largest amount of biomass per capita in the world and 6.5% of the world's bioenergy potential.

How do you view the employment outlook for the forest bioeconomy in Canada, and what specific measures could the federal government put in place to encourage the development of new forest biomass products and facilitate the commercialization of new and existing products?

[John Arsenault]

I'll give you two examples from our presentation: enhancing existing programs, possibly by increasing their geographic scope, and ensuring that forest biomass is considered for credit eligibility under the Clean Fuels Standard that Environment and Climate Change Canada is implementing.

The objective of Vision Biomasse Québec is to develop the use of 1 million metric tons of residual forest biomass, and it expects to create 12,000 jobs in the construction phase and 3,000 to 4,000 jobs for ongoing activities. We are talking here about jobs in the regions for the extraction of the resource. This will also have the effect of consolidating the forest industry in general, which is currently struggling to find markets for its sawmill residues. Paper mills are in decline. The use of bioenergy could help keep these production units alive.

Mr. Paradis knows this conundrum too. In fact, he has installed a biomass heating system in his facilities. He can..

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you. I'm going to have to interrupt and stop you there, sir. I'm sorry.

[John Arsenault]

Yes.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Arsenault.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Mr. Cannings, we'll go over to you for six minutes.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Thank you to all the witnesses here before us. I wish we had all day to ask questions, but apparently I have six minutes.

I'm going to focus all my questions on you, Dr. Kurz, because I've been waiting to hear from you in this study. I think it's very important testimony.

You were saying that mitigation must be incremental and additive to what we've been doing. You pointed out that it's really important to look at how we use our wood. That makes a big difference. I'm wondering if you could talk about how we harvest that wood. I'm wondering what sort of impact that might have—different harvesting techniques, clear cuts or selective logging. How does it compare with what we do with the wood?

[Dr. Werner Kurz]

Thank you for the question, Mr. Cannings.

The challenge here is that, as with all ecological systems, it really depends. When we manage and harvest wood that was already killed by mountain pine beetle, spruce beetle, wildfire, drought or other calamities, we have a very different impact on the timber and the future carbon balance than if we harvest actively growing forests or old-growth forests.

Scandinavia has much better data than we do. Canada has an ongoing debate about whether a selection cutting-based approach or a clear cutting-based approach is superior. Each has its own advantages and disadvantages. I would say the jury is still out on that, and certainly in British Columbia and other parts of Canada where root diseases, mistletoe and other problems of existing stands can be perpetuated through partial cutting systems. That needs to be considered as well.

How we treat the site also matters. If we slash burn after harvesting, for example, which is often done as a fuel reduction and fire risk protection strategy...but again in British Columbia that causes some five million tonnes of CO2 emissions per year and these are clearly avoidable if we have alternative and better uses for that biomass.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Thank you.

You mentioned there's kind of a lag time after harvest where sequestration is negative. There's more emission than sequestration, as I understand it, and then 20 or 30 years later we get to a point of positive sequestration. If we're trying to get to net zero by 2050, how do we manage that 20 to 30 year lag time? By the time we're getting those benefits, it's already 2050.

[Dr. Werner Kurz]

First of all, that lag time is not necessarily that long. It could be as little as five to 10 years, depending on the site and the rate of regrowth of forest. But, yes, if we fail to regenerate adequately, that lag time could be longer. It could be as long as 20 years and in extreme cases, perhaps even 30. That's clearly not desirable.

A lot depends on how we harvest, what we do with the residue that is there and how quickly we replant and encourage reforestation.

The point is that the alternative of not harvesting is not necessarily enhancing forest carbon sinks either. We recently completed a study with Parks Canada looking at our national parks—the forests in 31 national parks. We showed that since 1990 these national park forests were not carbon sinks over the cumulative period, particularly in the west where insects, drought and wildfire caused carbon losses.

Conservation and stopping logging in the world of climate change is not necessarily a solution either. These kinds of analyses are so critically important so that we can develop science-based, credible analyses of the alternatives that are available to us.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Thank you.

I want to move to biofuels, such as wood pellets and renewable natural gas, which are being proposed in a couple of places in my riding.

You mentioned that the disadvantage there is that we are releasing that carbon very quickly, but there are the replacement or substitution benefits. Up in Mr. Zimmer's riding and in other parts of northern B.C., there's a lot of wood pellet production and the pellets are being shipped to Europe to get countries like the U.K. off coal.

Is there any advice or direction you would give to us with regard to our climate accountability or climate emissions as to the kind of forest products we use for those pellets and how they're harvested, to maximize our benefits rather than producing two-by-fours?

[Dr. Werner Kurz]

Yes. I think colleagues in British Columbia and my team are all collaborating at present on various approaches to maximizing not only the value but also the employment and climate change mitigation benefits of alternative uses of wood and biomass.

If we harvest green trees to turn them into pellets, not only is this economically not a good idea but it is also not a good idea from a greenhouse gas emissions perspective.

If, on the other hand, we use wood that is in a slash pile—and appropriately in a slash pile—and convert that into pellets—because that wood would have been burned anyway—we must recognize that by using the energy in the pellet instead of releasing it into the atmosphere, we have a mitigation opportunity.

However, where we use the pellets also matters. If we ship them to Europe, we are accountable for the emissions and the Europeans have the benefits of the use of the pellets. Conversely, if we can use the pellets, the biofuels or the renewable gas in Canada to address our own greenhouse gas emission objectives, we have a better outcome.

Let me remind you, though, that biomass for bioenergy is typically the lowest value-generating opportunity. There are many innovative bioproducts and long-lived wood products that through innovation we need to explore further. Burning the wood as fuel or as a substitute for heat is a low-value, low-mitigation benefit.