Natural Resources committee  There is a difference between solid, liquid and gaseous fuels, but it's at the margin. Coal—solid fossil fuel—has a 94% or 95% carbon content; oil has 90% or 92%, and gas has 85% or 87%. They're still very high-carbon fuels. Yes, there is a small reduction, depending on which fuel you use, but biomass can move all of these energies and reduce greenhouse gases.

Natural Resources committee  Massive is probably not the right term. Yes, there is investment required in equipment and insulations, but a typical home will generate probably 10 tonnes of CO2 emissions, if it's burning fossil fuel, per year. Over 30 years that's 300 tonnes. A conversion, even taking into account the greenhouse gases involved with the equipment, is not close to that range at all.

Natural Resources committee  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.

Natural Resources committee  Yes.

Natural Resources committee  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.

Natural Resources committee  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.

Natural Resources committee  Yes, they are. I see that Madam Rancourt has joined the committee. She will be giving the presentation. I can answer any questions later.