Agriculture committee  Our orbit is North America from a fuels perspective. It would be incredibly uneconomic for European biofuels to come into Canada. There is more potential for our growth in terms of renewable chemicals and sustainable products to go into the European market. In terms of the actual potential for loss, as I believe was said, it's tough to figure out what the prices of commodities are seven years out.

Agriculture committee  As I said in my remarks, we don't have a biotechnology strategy per se. We have a renewable fuel strategy, of which we are strong supporters. We have been asking for some kind of a thought leadership piece from the federal government in this regard. We'd like to see it happen sooner rather than later, mostly because the Europeans have one and have heavily invested in it, and the Americans have a white paper that came from President Obama.

Agriculture committee  They have a policy in their renewable energy directive. They're considering a policy that would cap the amount of biofuel that could be made from crops. It's a ridiculous policy. That will have an adverse impact on canola, corn, and soy products that would head to Europe.

Agriculture committee  That is correct. On the ethanol side, we're very close. We produce 1.8 billion litres. We import about 1 billion litres from the United States. But our mandate, which was established by the Conservative government, only requires 2.1 billion litres. So we actually are over-complying with that mandate.

Agriculture committee  Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. On behalf of Canada's biofuels producers, thank you for this opportunity to provide our views on the Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement. Each year Canada's domestic biofuels industry returns more than $3 billion to the economy and removes over 4 million megatonnes of carbon from the environment.

Natural Resources committee  There is truth to that. I mean, there are CO2 emissions that come from forestry and from forestry waste, but these are different emissions than you would get from traditional fossil fuels. These are emissions that are, what I will call, above crust. By being above crust they're part of the natural carbon cycle.

Natural Resources committee  Absolutely. I want to be really clear. On the ethanol side and the creation of the mandate, our industry is working towards meeting that mandate. We don't have any advice in terms of increasing the mandate on the ethanol side. On the biodiesel side, we've seen some questions about removing bioheat from the current renewable fuel standard.

Natural Resources committee  I like your question better. Absolutely, I think the answer is yes. It will depend, of course, on what that price is, and the market drivers will make sure there is some type of universal application. For some of the questions I've heard other panellists answer, I didn't like the underlying assumptions that they were based on.

Natural Resources committee  There are a lot of underpinning assumptions in those questions that I'd like to deal with. The first one is the notion that ethanol doesn't have a good energy return. This is something that we've heard for quite some time. At the advent of ethanol when it was first considered for the Model T, there was a concern with the energy return that you would get, but you no longer see that.

Natural Resources committee  It's the million-dollar question. If we could see six years into the future, we'd all be bazillionaires, because we'd be able to invest in those companies. I can tell you, based on the support of this government, a company like Enerkem is able to move forward with the plant that it's building in northern Alberta, just north of Edmonton.

Natural Resources committee  Sure. I think that first of all, as a condition precedent, I would say that what we're doing on biodiesel and what we have succeeded with on ethanol...I mean, we had the same model in place. It was the application of that model that probably didn't work the way it was originally intended.

Natural Resources committee  Sure, and certainly I'm going to defer to Alicia here because that's part of the mandate of the document that she spoke to. In Canada we focus on the creation of the fuel as opposed to the delivery to the customer. It's up to the obligated parties to take advantage of their street corner locations and create their own market niches for one another, but what I will tell you is that in the United States, particularly in the Midwest, you have seen tax credits for pump turnover, you have seen drivers of technology that can be easily communicated to consumers at the pump so that they themselves can make those types of fuel choices in the gasoline market.

Natural Resources committee  No problem—

Natural Resources committee  I'm just so excited about the next generation of fuels that I can't contain myself. As I submitted to the finance committee, the CRFA supports preserving the current funding available and maintaining the existing eligibility criteria for the applicants under this fund. I was happy to see that as recently as this morning, Minister Kent, the Minister of the Environment, recommitted to SDTC and the next generation for biofuels fund, noting that it is a catalyst for building sustainable development technology infrastructure and is a significant driver of environmental—

Natural Resources committee  It's a significant driver of environmental innovation in Canada. We would welcome government announcements under the NGBF and look forward to collaborating with the government to make these a reality in the immediate near term. On the biodiesel side, our industry remains committed to ensuring that the Prime Minister's stated objective of 600 million litres of domestic biodiesel production is met.