THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, October 24, 2017
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met this day at 5:00 p.m. to continue its study on the potential impact of the effects of climate change on the agriculture, agri-food and forestry sectors.
Senator Ghislain Maltais (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. Today the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry is continuing its study on the potential impact of the effects of climate change on the agriculture, agri-food and forestry sectors. Today we welcome Mr. Jim Grey, Chair of Renewable Industries Canada, and Ms. Andrea Kent, member of the board of directors. You are most welcome, and thank you for accepting our invitation to appear before this committee.
Before you begin your presentation, I would like to introduce myself. I am Senator Ghislain Maltais, from Quebec. I would now ask senators to introduce themselves, starting on my right.
[English]
Senator Ogilvie: Kelvin Ogilvie, Nova Scotia.
Senator Doyle: Norman Doyle, Newfoundland and Labrador.
[Translation]
Senator Pratte: My name is André Pratte from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Bernard: Wanda Thomas Bernard, Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues. Now Mr. Grey, the floor is yours.
[English]
Jim Grey, Chair, Renewable Industries Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. I am the chair of our industry association, Renewable Industries Canada, and I am also president and CEO of IGPC Ethanol Inc, an ethanol company based in southwestern Ontario. I am here with my fellow board member Andrea Kent, Vice-President of Government and Public Affairs with Greenfield Global. Between the two of our companies, we represent the bulk of the ethanol industry in Canada.
IGPC Ethanol is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Integrated Grain Producers Co-operative. We are the largest farmer-owned cooperative based in Ontario. As a result of that, we are intimately connected with the agricultural sector.
RI Canada, Renewable Industries Canada, represents roughly 30 companies, whether they be renewable fuels or companies closely associated with the renewable fuels industry in Canada. On behalf of all of them, we thank you for inviting us here today.
The timing of your study on the potential impact of the effects of climate change on the agriculture, agri-food and forestry sector comes at a key moment. Environment and Climate Change Canada is preparing to announce its Clean Fuel Standard as part of the Pan-Canadian Framework on Climate Change. There are aspects of the CFS that will have direct impacts on the agricultural sector. To be clear, a CFS that includes blending requirements or mandates for renewable fuels is good for farmers and Canadian agriculture.
Next, I will say a bit about Renewable Industries Canada. Our association has a 33-year history of promoting the use of renewable fuels and a broad range of value-added renewable products in Canada. Some of you may be more familiar with our association under its previous name: The Canadian Renewable Fuels Association. We rebranded our association recently, in 2016. We did so to better reflect what our industry is doing, because we are all looking at a broad range of value-added products made by our members beyond renewable fuels. Our industry currently generates over $3.5 billion in economic activity annually, with renewable fuels such as ethanol, biodiesel and next-generation fuels such as cellulosic ethanol and renewable diesel — still at the core of what we do.
Producers of renewable fuels are “low-carbon” pioneers. Biofuels are proven to be the cleanest and most sustainable source of liquid fuel available to the transportation sector. Canadian-produced conventional ethanol reduces emissions by as much as 62 per cent compared to straight gasoline, cellulosic ethanol reduces emissions by 87 per cent and biodiesel reduces emissions by as much as 119 per cent compared to petroleum diesel.
In 2007, the federal government announced mandated requirements for the use of ethanol and biodiesel. Since then, using regulations established under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, obligated parties — refiners and importers — have been required to blend 5 per cent ethanol and 2 per cent biodiesel into the respective base pools for these fuels.
The policy known as the renewable fuels strategy has proven to be an unqualified success, building domestic capacity for biofuel production, contributing to GHG emission reductions and stimulating economic growth. Most significantly, the mandated requirement for renewable fuel content has reduced GHG emissions by 4.2 megatonnes per year, roughly the equivalent of removing 1 million cars from our roads in Canada.
At my company, IGPC, we are in the process of doubling production capacity to 400 million litres per year. This is a $120 million investment in our Aylmer, Ontario facility in southwestern Ontario, not too far from London, Ontario. It will make our plant one of the largest in Canada. In addition, the increased production will significantly reduce the volume of ethanol imported from the United States into Canada.
Other RI Canada members are also in the process of expanding ethanol production, bringing to market innovative new technologies such as the conversion of municipal waste to ethanol. No doubt Andrea will talk about that in her presentation.
Biodiesel is also a success story. Hamilton-based BIOX Corporation recently acquired a shuttered facility in Sombra, Ontario, not too far from Sarnia. The refit will see the facility equipped with roughly $5 million of upgrades before coming online with a production capacity of 50 million litres of biodiesel per year.
I will turn the microphone over to Andrea Kent from Greenfield, who will further discuss the value that renewables bring to the agricultural sector.
[Translation]
The Chair: Just before you start your presentation, allow me to introduce Senator Raymonde Gagné, from Manitoba, who is just joining us.
Senator Gagné: Welcome.
The Chair: The floor is yours, Ms. Kent.
[English]
Andrea Kent, Member of Board of Directors, Renewable Industries Canada: Allow me to echo Jim’s words and thank everyone at the committee for having us this evening.
Greenfield Global is a diverse alcohol and ethanol producer. In many ways, we not only pioneered a lot of the ethanol you see being used in Ontario and across the country, but we have also become Canada’s largest producer of corn ethanol, which is blended into gasoline. We are the only producer of industrial and specialty alcohols in Canada.
We are quickly emerging as one of Canada’s leading innovators in the areas of advanced biofuels and the development of what a lot of people refer to as next-generation biorefining technologies. Our company has one of Canada’s state-of-the-art fermentation research facilities at our Quebec plant; we have a leading-edge technology demonstration facility adjacent to our plant in Chatham, Ontario; and we have established a stand-alone R&D campus in Chatham, Ontario.
These are some of the things that sometimes perhaps are not immediately associated with an ethanol producer, but certainly for us, as Jim alluded to, a lot of members of Renewable Industries Canada are reinvesting in our own research and development technologies. That is good news for agriculture and the environment, and it is exciting to be able to talk about that here in more detail.
As you probably know, ethanol and biodiesel can be made from a variety of feedstocks. For example, corn-based ethanol enables consumers to enjoy environmental benefits without having to pay more for the fuel they put in their gas tanks, and without having to make any habitual changes to their consumer choices and behaviour in the marketplace, which, we have to be practical and concede, can take time. These are ways to effect clean environmental benefits across the entire fuel pool simultaneously.
Another possibility is producing cellulosic ethanol from excess corn stover, which is right now not part of the ethanol process. It is an inedible part of the corn plants. A lot of times, it is just left behind. We are looking at ways to recoup that and turn that agricultural waste into a resource.
The production of biofuels provides demand for the increase in Canadian crop production, which I imagine is something senators here are also quite familiar with. Increased innovation and productivity by our farmers is good news. It means that we have a reduced quantity of cropland that is farmed, and it means Canadian farmers have become incredibly more productive with less land than they ever have before.
It also means we need to continually enhance market opportunities for this increased agricultural yield. Farmers with increased yields are more important than ever to forming ways that biomass can be part of the agri-innovative economy. In this regard, the kind of traditional myth of biofuels leading to an over extension of the agriculture sector remains that: an outdated myth. Farmers are asking for stronger biofuels policies for a good reason: They want that market certainty as much as producers of the renewable fuels do.
It is probably clear here that climate change is not just a phenomenon. It is a problem, it is a reality and a challenge that needs to be addressed by as many different sectors and with as much wherewithal as possible.
In a report earlier this month, Canada’s Environment Commissioner issued her latest wake-up call to all of us, but especially to policymakers, when she wrote that:
. . . failing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions increases the risks of pollution, natural disasters, forest fires and floods.
She went on to state that though regulatory progress had been made since 2014, “it would not be sufficient to meet the 2020 target.”
I don’t think that anyone in this room is ready to accept that failure is an option when it comes to the fight against climate change. That is why we are both here today: to talk about not only the new and emerging opportunities to increase innovation in the agricultural centre, but also to look at ways that we can build upon Canada’s successful biofuels policy and increase opportunities for the use of biofuels in the fight against climate change.
To round out the remarks, there are a couple of things that are of note.
Increasing the volumetric requirements for ethanol to 10 per cent from 5 per cent and 5 per cent from 2 per cent for biodiesel are known to reduce emissions and spur economic activity without any cost to consumers. We have seen this successfully done in jurisdictions that have increased their mandates to levels that are, in some cases, much higher than what Canada is contemplating.
Last month, the Conference Board of Canada issued a report echoing what we know to be true in terms of their proven success in policy and with regard to the policy being contemplated for a national clean fuel standard. The Conference Board wrote:
. . . a clean fuel standard that fails to maintain, or expand, current blend mandates for renewable fuels is not recommended.
Canada is not alone in this. More than 60 countries worldwide have mandates for renewable fuels. Most developed countries, and even some less-developed countries, are already well ahead of Canada in this regard.
Hopefully, in our conversation that follows here today, I will be able to flesh out those policies in more detail and see what opportunities exist not only for the environment and renewables, but also tying back into agriculture and forestry.
Thank you very much for your time.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation.
Senator Doyle: Thank you for being here. This is an interesting topic.
I am wondering what the barriers might be in producing biofuels. I was just reading a couple of days ago about Oxfam Canada. I am sure you are aware of it. Biofuels are made from crops which are mixed with fossil fuel to run cars, et cetera. Corn has to be grown, along with wheat, sugar cane, sugar beet and palm oil, et cetera. In short, land and water has to be used to make them.
I am wondering about the future. Have you thought about what the future might hold here as wealthy countries, for instance, demand ever more fuel to be made from food and food prices go up? I am sure, given the business you are in, you must think of it every now and then when you see organizations like Oxfam coming out and saying what they are saying, for instance. Do you have any thoughts on that you might be able to share?
Mr. Grey: You may be shocked to know that this is not the first time we have had the food versus fuel question.
The statistics are that there is more corn today grown in North America than there has ever been on the same acres of land. The changes in agronomy practices are stimulated largely by the ethanol industry, frankly. They have resulted in much increased productivity on land.
Andrea and I happened to be at a conference together in Houston last week where a gentleman who spoke made the comment that cheap corn, believe it or not, is what will starve people, not expensive corn.
I have been in the corn-processing industry in one way or another for almost 40 years now. Everyone in the supply chain has to make money. That is the way business works. I have bought corn at less than $2 a bushel and I have bought corn at almost $10 a bushel. If you buy corn at $2 a bushel, farmers aren’t going to make money, they will sell their farm and build houses on it.
And $10 a bushel doesn’t make sense either. Today, corn is trading at roughly $3.50. Can I sit here categorically and say ethanol has not contributed to the increased price of corn? No, I can’t. What I can say is that in Ontario, for example, when the province launched the Ontario growth fund and that initiative, one of the reasons they did so specifically was to increase income at the farm gate because farmers weren’t making money, they were going out of business and selling their farms.
In the so-called food versus fuel debate, there are many sides to this argument but we have clearly indicated that, through a whole variety of studies, ethanol has not contributed to the grocery cart price tag. When oil goes up, everything goes up with it.
Ms. Kent: If I can quickly supplement what Jim is saying, he is absolutely right about the supply chain economics here. The reality is that higher corn prices benefit rural areas. That applies to Canada and that also applies to countries like Ethiopia and Kenya which, you may be interested to know, have also introduced mandates for biofuels, including ethanol.
With the advent of biofuels and ethanol, a lot of the concern at that time was around sustainability issues in the context that no one was really sure of their impact But here we are,15 years down the road, and we can now say that when it comes to food security and sustainability, the problem will not be biofuels. The problem will be food waste. I think that is, respectfully, what groups like Oxfam should pivot toward because that is the real threat to global food access. It will not be biofuels production.
Senator Doyle: I guess from the casual observer’s point of view, me being one, you are saying that biofuel should help reduce carbon emissions. Some people argue that the more of these biofuels that are produced, the more land has to be cleared, the more forest has to be cleared, and, as a result, more carbon emissions could be released.
That is a question for the future. I guess no one really knows yet.
Ms. Kent: We have an idea. If you look at where the industry has come in a short time, going back to 10 years to when our industry was built, for example, versus visiting any of our facilities today, they really have gone into full bio-refining mode.
Companies like ours are reinvesting in technologies that are going to make them more efficient and increase operational efficacy -- we can make better ethanol and we can make it for less, we can reduce the environmental impact of our facilities -- is what you want any well-run, mature, sophisticated business to do. That also extends into how land is farmed. That also looks at farming practices. It looks at the fact that we can grow three times more corn on the same hectare than we used to be able to. It also applies to water use.
A lot of times, the studies that speak to things like energy balance, water use and indirect land use are models but they do not meet the rigour of what the current context, what the modern industry really looks like.
While there were good intentions behind why some of those issues were looked at and considered initially, they just haven’t held up scientifically as good measures of those issues for a current ethanol production facility. And they really don’t look at any of the ancillary benefits that come off of it as well. That is, looking at whether it is bolt on technology for things like fibre separation technology or anaerobic digestion and looking at woody biomass to RNG, which is one of the projects that Greenfield is looking at, you get a dated, very small idea of the full potential of the industry as well.
Senator Doyle: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
The Chair: I don’t know what is driving up corn prices, but every time I go to the movies with my grandchildren I am surprised. I give them $20 for two bags of popcorn and they come back with just a little bit of change. When I was young, for a dime, you could buy a bag of popcorn. Corn has become very expensive. However, we won't be able to solve this problem today.
[English]
Senator Ogilvie: Mr. Grey, I was struck by the line in here that says that ethanol reduces emissions by as much as 62 per cent compared to gasoline, cellulosic ethanol by 87 per cent and biodiesel by 119 per cent compared to petroleum diesel. I would like you to explain how these numbers are calculated. It seems to me, taking biodiesel as an example, if we simply eliminated all the biodiesel from use it would reduce the amount of emission from biodiesel by 100 per cent. You can’t get more than that by removing all the biodiesel.
How does burning an alternate fuel, covering the same amount of energy achieved, give a reduction 119 per cent?
Mr. Grey: Basically, that data is saying if you look at the life cycle analysis of biodiesel, gathering the input, raw material, running the facility, transporting it to the blender, putting it in the fuel and burning it in a diesel engine; that entire life cycle of energy input is roughly 120 per cent less than producing diesel fuel in a refinery and doing the same thing. That is, taking the raw material to a diesel refinery, converting it to diesel fuel, transporting it to the blender, putting it in a diesel tank and then burning it. It has to do with the source of the raw material, which in many cases is rendered animal fats. The corn oil that we produce out of our ethanol facility goes to make biodiesel, as does Andrea’s plant, soybean oil and a whole variety of other things. That is how that is calculated.
There is a model that Natural Resources Canada and Environment Canada use called GHGenius. It is a computer model developed by a gentleman that we are all very familiar with, Don O’Connor. It is a world-renowned GHG modelling, a computer model that takes all the inputs, all the transportation, everything that you can possibly imagine from a life cycle perspective. If you are producing biodiesel and blending biodiesel, you are effectively reducing the entire output of that vehicle by that amount, 119 per cent.
Senator Ogilvie: I will remain skeptical of that, particularly the last statement that 5 per cent can produce that kind of impact.
The use of alcohol in gasoline is my second question. At the outset, there was considerable concern that the ethanol would lead to problems over time in an internal combustion engine. One of the reasons is that ethanol is completely miscible with water, which means it is a great absorbent for water whereas normal hydrocarbons are not miscible with water at all.
The concern was mixing ethanol into an internal combustion engine — and I admit up front that there are ways of reducing the exposure of the fuel to the atmosphere and, therefore, minimizing the absorption of water from the atmosphere, but nothing is perfect in this world. There was also concern that in the way the combustion occurs, it could lead to impacts on the internal combustion engine.
We have now had a number of years of experience. What is the real world experience with regard to any possible impact on the engines and vehicles in areas where ethanol is mandated or required to be at least 5 per cent?
Mr. Grey: I will answer that in a number of ways. First, Canada has a 5 per cent mandate. The obligated parties actually blend it more like 7 or 7.5 per cent mandate because ethanol is a very cheap octane enhancer and they need that. As much as they complain, they are overblending because they are buying something for $1 and selling it for $2. Brazil is blending at roughly 27.5 per cent; most of the world is blending at 10 per cent. The CGSB is about to approve an ethanol standard of 15 per cent in Canada. That doesn’t mean we will be making it, but they are approving that standard.
There is no evidence that at least at a 10 per cent ethanol content, there is any harm being done to engines. The U.S. is gradually going to a 15 per cent ethanol blend. They have limited the amount for early model cars on that, but as that gradually goes, they will be going to a 15 per cent blend.
The ultimate point here is ethanol — and biodiesel — is an effective way to reduce GHG emissions in the transportation sector. Is it perfect? Probably not. Are we going to wait to achieve perfection or will we continually move the ball forward to look for those GHG reduction targets. Ethanol is a clear example of something that can be utilized. Whether at 5, 10 or 15 per cent, or in some cases even higher than that, it can be utilized.
Is it a perfect solution? No. Are electric vehicles a perfect solution? Likely not but it’s one of many.
Senator Ogilvie: Those are good talking points but you didn’t answer my question about the impact on the internal combustion engine. However, I’ll stop, chair. Thank you very much.
Senator Pratte: I want to pursue this line of questioning. I was wondering why 10 per cent and why not 15 or 20? Why stop at 10? If the U.S. is going to 15, why wouldn’t you recommend 15?
Mr. Grey: The CAFE standards, the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards, are requesting that we see 55 miles per gallon by 2025. The OEMs are saying that we can do that, but we need lighter engines with higher compression. The way we need to do that is with higher octane and the only way we can do that today is with ethanol blended somewhere between 20 and 30 per cent.
We’re saying 10 per cent because, frankly, when we talk to Environment Canada and Natural Resources Canada, we have opponents. The Canadian Fuels Association recently put out a memo, a blog, suggesting that by the biofuels industry in Canada lobbying for a 10 per cent mandate, we are limiting their flexibility to provide the cheapest, cleanest fuel to the consumer.
When we were talking about 10 per cent recently in Ottawa, a staffer made a somewhat aggressive comment to me, namely, “What are you afraid of? Are you afraid of competition?” We’re not afraid of competition, but, unfortunately, our customers are our competition. They’re not going to be willing to buy our product likely unless they’re told to do so.
So, yes, I would love 15 per cent. I’d love 30 per cent. But we’re trying to find a ground here where we can make an impact, where we can respond as an industry and further build out the industry where it’s not coming from the United States into Canada, and we can build out the industry quickly to supply that 10 per cent. It’s all about finding common ground.
Yes, I don’t think there is any doubt in any of our minds.
Ms. Kent: If you’ll permit me to add to what Jim is saying, the elephant in the room sometimes when we talk about these issues and the transportation sector is that we have to appreciate that there will always be some natural tension between traditional fossil fuels in Canada and disruptive alternatives, whether you’re talking about biofuels or electrification.
In arriving at a recommendation for 10, it is by no means the most aggressive or ambitious blend requirement for ethanol in gasoline. Similarly, 5 per cent biodiesel is not going to be a world leader when it comes to that blending requirement either. As Jim was saying, this is a practical solution that we can work with right now. We know that obligated parties voluntarily are overcomplying with the existing 5 per cent mandate. Going to 10 per cent would allow them to meet a technical path quickly and realistically so that 10 per cent requirement can be implemented and we can start seeing the return to agriculture benefits and we can start seeing the environmental benefits. In order for that to become a reality, the Clean Fuel Standard needs to be accompanied by blending requirements for biofuels; otherwise, the monopoly for the gas tank will be still in the control of our customers who, ultimately, are not the ones producing renewable alternatives in the same quantities we are.
Mr. Grey: At the end of the day, we all go to the pump. We have no choice. We have a couple of octanes that we can choose from. In the midwest, however, with blender pumps they do have a choice. They can dial the amount of ethanol they want to see in their gas tank.
Senator Pratte: Out of the ethanol that is blended, do we know what share is cellulosic ethanol?
Mr. Grey: In Canada, there is very little.
Senator Pratte: Is there a reason why that is so?
Mr. Grey: Yes. In the United States they have what they call a renewable identification number system, essentially a carbon credit. They get value for carbon credits or carbon reduction. Those credits are traded. So the producer of the cellulosic ethanol and the consumer will arrive at a negotiation to share that credit. Right now it’s not insignificant. For pure ethanol it is 60 or 70 cents a gallon; for cellulosic it is much higher than that. We have no system like that in Canada.
If I were to produce cellulosic ethanol, I would sell it for the same price I’m selling traditional ethanol. To build a cellulosic ethanol plant today is much more expensive than a traditional ethanol plant. If we put a price on carbon and a price or value on the life cycle advantage from a GHG perspective that traditional ethanol, or traditional biodiesel, or cellulosic ethanol brings to the environment, there won’t be a lot of cellulosic ethanol built in Canada.
Ms. Kent: Others countries are ahead of the game, the U.S. as Jim mentioned. The RIN credit system has added some texture to the market that Canadian producers don’t have the same access to right now. Italy and other European countries have the same thing.
An interesting point to drive it home is that there are options for Canada. It will more than likely come off of existing traditional ethanol platforms though. That’s what you’re going to see here. You will see companies like Greenfield become much more optimized at producing traditional corn ethanol. You will see them partnering and reinvesting that expertise with new technology providers, and you’re going to see projects like what we have in Quebec right now which is a cellulosic ethanol project that uses forest residue.
It’s companies that are already in the ethanol space that are most likely to be able to deliver on these advanced cellulosic technologies because the economics are hard. The science is complicated, and bringing it to market takes a lot of courage and guts as well as money. It also goes back to one of the ancillary benefits of maintaining a strong mandate for biofuels like ethanol in Canada. With that market certainty removed for biofuels producers, looking at jurisdictions that continue to have mandates, whether it’s in the United States like California; or whether it is overseas in Europe, that is what will create the market for cellulosic. It would be a real shame for a resource-rich country like Canada to lose out.
[Translation]
The Chair: I would ask you to speed things along, because several senators wish to ask questions and we only have an hour.
[English]
Senator Bernard: Thank you both for your presentations. I’ll take the conversation in a different direction. My questions are for you, Ms. Kent.
In your testimony, Ms. Kent, you mentioned that we would be surprised to learn that most developed countries, and even some less developed countries, are well ahead of Canada. I wonder if you could expand on that. I’m particularly interested in which less developed countries are farther ahead and what is driving them.
Ms. Kent: Looking across the world, some countries do not have the same kind of easy, connect-the-dots path to bioeconomy and agro-innovation that Canada has. There are countries that have more difficult climates to work with and countries that sometimes will have a more complicated supply chain for agriculture. I mentioned in my remarks Kenya and Ethiopia, those parts of the world, as well as where the largest emerging markets are. India and China are not necessarily lauded for their environmental action, whereas in Canada we like to think we are. But they are pursuing a more expedited path in some ways than to where the Canadian process has gone thus far. They are looking at implementing mandates for biofuels. They are looking at blending requirements that are higher than our current levels. Brazil, which has different feedstock -- obviously they have sugar, and they do have farm subsidization programs that do not exist in Canada in the same way -- is looking at 27 per cent. This goes back to issues such as “Is ethanol at 27 per cent safe for my engine,” and “Why are you stopping at 10; go to 15.”
If you look at the Brazilian car fleet, they’re not all flex-fuel vehicles. In fact, the majority of them are still legacy, traditional, small combustion engines. But they’re realizing that ethanol is road tested, proven and safe for use in all engines. They’re also realizing that by just including it in the fuel blend, period, you affect GHG production across the entire fuel pool simultaneously. It’s going to be able to come on line much more quickly than, say, consumers that need to have their vehicles turn over to electrification.
A lot of times when we hear about food security and sustainability, we like to open up people’s world view a bit. I don’t think countries are much different when it comes to looking at the environment and wanting practical solutions that are going to create jobs and also create environmental security. But where they are pulling ahead us, quite honestly, is in how aggressively they’re looking at biofuels and the policy stability around their biofuels mandate.
Hopefully that’s some context, but I’d be more than happy to give you a complete list of everywhere with biofuels mandates. There are about 60 countries right now.
Senator Bernard: Yes, that would be helpful and interesting, and also what lessons Canada can draw from those.
Ms. Kent: Yes.
Senator Gagné: Thank you very much for your presentation. I think I have a better idea of the benefits of ethanol production, but my question is this: What would be the drawbacks of ethanol production? I know that Senator Ogilvie mentioned the water extraction when you blend ethanol, and you mentioned the effect on the price of corn or soy or whatever you’re using.
What about the process of distilling the corn or the grain, which takes a lot of time and energy? Would that be a drawback? Usually, I imagine, the source of heat must be fossil fuel.
Mr. Grey: Again, we’re comparing the production of ethanol to the production of straight gasoline. When we say that the inclusion of ethanol in the gasoline pool reduces GHG emissions, we’re saying that the process to plant, harvest, deliver, grind and ferment the corn and ultimately deliver the ethanol to the blender and put it in a gas tank, that the carbon output from that entire life cycle is less than straight gasoline.
Yes, we are energy consumers. We burn natural gas to fire our facilities. As Andrea mentioned, many of our facilities are converting to anaerobic digestion to convert municipal solid waste or agriculture waste products to gas to fire our facilities. However, the ultimate point is, as I said earlier, are we perfect? Are we zero emissions? No, we’re not, but we’re significantly less than gasoline, and I think that’s the point. This is the point we’ve been trying to make. This is a solution that’s here today. With greater inclusion of ethanol in the fuel mix, we can have an immediate positive impact on GHG emissions. That has been our point.
The technology is changing quickly. I often joke: What did your cellphone look like 15 years ago? It was the size of a brick, and what could it do? Ethanol plants are the same. Fifteen or twenty years ago, an ethanol plant would yield 2.6 or 2.7 gallons of ethanol per bushel of corn. Today it’s 2.9. It doesn’t sound like a lot, but that’s huge. The amount of water an ethanol plant consumes has drastically reduced. The amount of electricity and natural gas an ethanol plant consumes has drastically reduced.
It’s in our own best interest, because it’s all about economies. The more efficient that we can make an ethanol plant, the better our economies are the better the impact we have on the environment.
Ms. Kent: If you would permit me very quickly to talk about the drawbacks, because I think it is an important question.
I don’t think there are any technical barriers to increased ethanol use in the fuel pool. I think that we could, as Jim mentioned, easily go to E7 and E8 because we know that is the level of a lot of blending already. It’s already in the marketplace at those levels.
I don’t think that sometimes people who bring forward concerns about the efficacy and sustainability of ethanol do so for interests that aren’t self-serving. There are, unfortunately, groups out there that are putting out research right now and are happy to use selective economics to suggest that “Maybe this isn’t a policy we need anymore because we’ve moved beyond mandates. Maybe we can go to a flexible system that allows oil and gas companies to decide how they want to meet their emissions reduction targets. Maybe there are less expensive ways to get GHG abatement than from biofuels use.”
We can waste a lot of time looking at these partially baked theories where I think — and this is what Jim is saying — the drawback to ethanol really isn’t an environmental drawback. It really isn’t a cost to consumer drawback. The only drawback to ethanol is for oil and gas companies. They have to give up some of their market share in the fuel tank in order to get us there.
Senator Oh: Thank you, panel. I understand that Renewable Industries Canada hosted the Renewable Industries Forum last week in Ottawa. Can you give us an update of this forum and what are the most significant outcomes of the forum? What is the future of renewables?
Mr. Grey: I would be delighted to. We host an annual forum to discuss topics relative to our industry.
This is a pretty dynamic landscape. As late as last week when we held the forum, there were a number of discussion topics, and one of them was trade. I’m just going to focus on that.
As early as last week, there was a great deal of concern within our industry because there was a proposal made to the EPA in the United States that would allow ethanol exported from the United States into Canada could contribute towards the U.S. renewable fuels standard, which means it would attract a RIN. We mentioned RINs earlier. This would have been devastating to the renewable fuels industry in Canada. It would be ethanol coming into the country being subsidized at 60 or 70 cents a gallon. We would have immediately launched a trade action assuming that Chapter 19 still exists after the NAFTA discussions, and it would close the border to U.S. ethanol. But, in the meantime, there would have been significant damage done. That was a week ago.
On Friday of last week, Scott Pruitt wrote a letter to the EPA saying, “You will not do this,” after Donald Trump made a tour through Iowa and got the ear of Senator Grassley and others. That was one of the major subjects.
Trade within our industry is a very important issue. I just mention that as an example.
There were a lot of technical discussions as well, and certainly some of the points that we have been making this evening with respect to Canada and other nations around the world — renewable fuels and where they’re going with renewable fuels — were also highlighted. Those are some of the issues.
Ms. Kent: Regarding the trade situation, we started the week in crisis mode. What if this change happens in the U.S.? Then Donald Trump told Mr. Pruitt, “No, we’re not changing our American renewable fuels standard. That mandate is staying strong. You write a letter and get rid of all this uncertainty in the marketplace.” President Donald Trump, who, the last time I checked, shares zero of our country’s climate change ambition, has come out supporting a mandate. The economics speak for themselves.
[Translation]
The Chair: Before ending, I have two questions for you. What is the maximum allowable percentage of ethanol for gas used to fuel vehicles in Canada? You say that it is between 5 per cent and 7 per cent, whereas in Brazil, it is 27 per cent. What is the maximum percentage of ethanol that can be put in gas before you have to make changes to the engine?
[English]
Mr. Grey: If you buy a flex fuel vehicle and you see the logo on the back of the car, it can take 85 per cent ethanol. To convert a standard car to a flex fuel vehicle requires a minor change of the engine.
[Translation]
The Chair: I am going to compare a gallon of ordinary gas with a gallon of ethanol. There is 70 per cent tax on a gallon of gasoline. How much is there on a gallon of ethanol?
[English]
Mr. Grey: It is the same. That’s one of the issues that we have. Straight ethanol is 114 octane. This is one of the issues that we have been talking about: Tax should be based on octane value, not on volume because you’re getting more bang for your buck by buying ethanol.
Ms. Kent: That’s a recommendation we have presented to the Finance Committee as well.
[Translation]
The Chair: Our mandate is to study greenhouse gases and their effect on agriculture, and the carbon tax. I am happy to learn that you are expending great efforts to produce ethanol. You’ll find yourself on the carbon market and you’ll be taxed. These taxes will have to be invested in research, because I can’t see how we can import corn from the United States, despite the fact that it’s poor quality, when we can produce this from waste from the cities and villages.
There are some industries, moreover, that run on ethanol. For example, in Quebec, Serres Sagami-Savoura-Biologico produces tomatoes for all of Canada and only runs on ethanol.
In my opinion, you should focus your research on biomass from waste. It is in this niche that you will find your strength and your value for Canadians. It would also be a good lesson on the international level. We mustn’t forget that there are countries with populations of 1.4 billion people. I am thinking of India in particular, where people only eat only one meal a day, and when they see that we’re burning corn to produce fuel in Canada, they wouldn’t like that.
I would invite you to continue your research on what can be done with biomass. If you only had one recommendation for our committee, what would it be?
[English]
Ms. Kent: We are working with a greenhouse in Chatham to do exactly that. They are located across from our ethanol plant. They will be taking our CO2 already. They will take our waste heat to get that greenhouse off natural gas. We are looking at ways to explore opportunities to use the tomato vines as biomass feed stock.
One recommendation that could be used building on your points is how do we best ensure sustainable biomass is available? How do we advise governments on structuring revenue programs coming off of carbon pricing like cap and trade and a carbon tax nationally so that they are best funnelled into promising technologies that are going to achieve GHG reductions? That’s going to be an area where every jurisdiction can use some advice and some best practices because in a lot of ways it’s still unchartered territory.
We are a young industry. We’re 30-35 years old compared to a 100-year-old fossil fuel incumbent industry. If you look at our ability to find new technology and improve our operations, we have demonstrated success in all of the innovations you’re talking about. We just need to continue to have a pathway forward. If you look at successful jurisdictions that are doing world class innovation they have a mandate, carbon pricing and programs that incentivize R&D.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you so much, Ms. Kent and Mr. Grey, for appearing before our committee today. It was very interesting. Moreover, you probably noticed that the senators are very interested in carbon, because in Canada and throughout the world, it is the king of greenhouse gases. Like all Canadians, farmers want to take steps to reduce greenhouse gases.
We will now hear from Mr. Greg Adams, Manager, Research and Development, J.D. Irving Limited. Mr. Adams, welcome to our committee. We know your company very well in the forestry industry. We are going to ask you to take a few minutes to do your presentation. Then there will be a question period by senators. You can do your presentation in English if you like.
[English]
Greg Adams, Manager, Research and Development, J.D. Irving, Limited: Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable senators. I would like to speak today about the activities and further strategies of J.D. Irving, Limited, toward climate change and adaptation. I will start with an overview of the company’s forest products manufacturing, go over a couple of aspects of mitigation that the company is involved with and then speak to further adaptation in the long-run to climate change.
J.D. Irving is a group of family-owned vertically integrated companies heavily involved in the forest products industry. The company manages 2.2 million hectares of forest land in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and the state of Maine. About 1.2 million of those hectares are freehold land, and 1 million is Crown land managed in the province of New Brunswick on behalf of the province.
Tree planting has been a hallmark of our forest management, and this year we are celebrating 60 years of tree planting. That is a major accomplishment. Next year we will have planted 1 billion trees.
The figure illustrates the various aspects of forest products that we do from lumber, tissue, magazine paper, cardboard and cardboard packaging, and most of the products leave the country to international markets.
From the standpoint of mitigation, the first aspect is industrial greenhouse gas emissions reductions. J.D. Irving has made large investments across the pulp and paper businesses as well as sawmills to achieve significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, all the time increasing production. Over $100 million have been invested just in the pulp mills on these projects, and emissions have been cut by almost 50 per cent since 1990. This has been achieved by waste heat recovery units at the mills, a new biomass fuel boiler at Lake Utopia, the corrugated medium mill, and the installation of high efficiency natural gas boilers to replace fuel oil at Irving Paper.
That is one aspect of mitigation. The other is carbon sequestration. Because J.D. Irving is so vertically integrated, it provides a good opportunity to get a good fix on the overall carbon footprint. In partnership with the University of New Brunswick’s Dr. Chris Hennigar, we assessed the carbon footprint from seedling productions to the store shelves and beyond. This included carbon absorbed by growing trees, carbon emissions through harvesting, transportation and manufacturing, as well as the storage, the products that the wood is turned into, and the eventual release of carbon in wood and paper products over time.
That was a very positive story for us. Over the next 50 years, CO2 sequestered from the forests that J.D. Irving owns and manages is projected to be 92 million tonnes. If you look at overall sequestration, with all of the sources and sinks accounted for, we are sinking over a million tonnes per year, for the next 50 years, using current projections.
Some of the elements that contribute to that are certainly fire and pest control; tending of the forest; tree planting and also some of the tree-improvement efforts that I will speak to as well.
I want to point out a major threat to carbon sequestration in the form of spruce budworm. Threats of imminent spruce budworm outbreak in our region are a major concern from many standpoints — economic and social but also including carbon sequestration. The current outbreak in the province of Quebec is causing devastation to a forest area larger than the entire province of New Brunswick. That is illustrated in the figure below. An early-intervention program has been proposed to the federal government by the four Atlantic provinces and industry, all of whom are prepared to contribute significantly to this program.
We estimate that an uncontrolled outbreak would result in emissions of 66 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents over the next 30 years, which is equivalent to 14 million passenger vehicles per year. So we have a lot of concern about actively managing spruce budworm, which is right next door to us.
The next thing I will talk about is adaptation in forest management. This involves the active things that we need to be doing, as the decades progress, to deal with climate change. Forest managers in northeastern North America deal with forest rotations that span a number of decades. Certainly, all of the modelling work indicates significant change during the rotations of stands of forest trees where silviculture is being conducted today. At the same time, anticipating an impact at a particular forest level is difficult considering all of the uncertainty around the complexity of interactions, average temperature change and the extremes, precipitation, insect and disease dynamics, CO2 levels, forest fires. All of these things factor into how we have to plan to adapt. The slides show a couple of examples of some pest problems that are directly associated with a warmer climate, including balsam woolly adelgid, on the left, and beech bark disease, on the right.
I’ll point out three approaches that will help us to ensure forest resiliency. The first thing is to ensure that biologically and economically sound decisions are made today in stand regeneration across all different forest types. Basically, what I am trying to say there is make sure you are managing for the right things in the right places. That is, making ecologically appropriate decisions at the same time that will feed into the economy.
Impacts from climatic extremes, things like temperature, drought or insect and disease, are often exacerbated by poor overall health. If something isn’t appropriate or suited for the site, then, typically, the response is worse when it gets some sort of environmental insult.
In addition to strong on-the-ground advanced planning and decision-making, we need to continually refine site information available for the long-range planning. This is all about helping us to make better decisions. J.D. Irving has invested heavily in technologies such as LIDAR to facilitate that, to help all of the folks that work in our forest have access to information that helps them to make better decisions.
The next approach to ensure forest resiliency is to maintain vigorous growth through tending. Tending, spacing, commercial thinning, all of these things, basically providing the trees room to grow, this type of tending increases the vigour of the trees and also tends to result in a shorter time to economic operability. This reduces the exposure time to risks from climate change, and it increases management options. We do this extensively. We tend thousands of hectares of pre-commercial thinning or spacing with brush saws in the forest, and, now, in just about every area where we operate, we are doing commercial thinning in trees that were either tended or planted some years ago.
The last approach that I will talk about with respect to forest resiliency is to understand genetic adaptive variation patterns for important species and conduct tree-improvement programs at appropriate scales across the region. This type of testing has been done for a number of years. Basically, it is testing many sources of the trees that are suitable for the area across a whole range of sites and studying how they respond over time. This is organized in very regimented tree genetics and improvement programs. These efforts can be used to examine the potential response of local seed sources to warmer environments, and, over time, they will continue to provide new information.
The figure on the right demonstrates the climate gradient across the Maritime regions today. This is frost-free period. You can see that it varies from 90 in northwestern New Brunswick through to 150 in some parts of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. That is an enormous climate gradient, and that is actually a larger climate gradient than you would expect through climate change projections over the next 30 or 40 years.
J.D. Irving has participated in tree-improvement programs, along with provincial governments and other industry, since the late 1970s. Test results indicate wide genetic variability within the region. Tree-improvement programs will be of critical importance in providing information and selection of trees that are adapted to changing conditions.
In summary, the forest industry has a strong role to play in both mitigation of and adaptation to climate change. Forest management is critical for carbon sequestration and also to improve the outcomes from a standpoint of adaptation and resiliency. The critical observation is that silviculture will be key, and we will have to do active forest management to improve resiliency. It needs to be a priority in order to maintain the economic and social benefits from our resources.
That concludes my comments.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Adams.
[Translation]
Mr. Adams, you are young. I would like to remind you that the last federal forestry minister was the Honourable Gerald Merrithew, who was from Saint Andrews, New Brunswick. During the time I worked in another Parliament, we worked closely within the framework of federal and provincial agreements on forest restoration.
From 1985 to 1986, I had the opportunity to visit practically all of Irving’s facilities. Two or three years ago, our committee also went to Moncton to visit facilities. I often mention you as an example. Nothing is lost by your company in terms of wood fibre, and the forest has become a garden for you. I went to see for myself and I noticed that there were as many women as men working on planting and harvesting, which is relatively rare, because it’s said that it is not women’s work. And yet, this is very specialized work being done with specialized machinery. I was surprised to see that there were as many women as men in some sectors. So that is all to your credit.
That said, we will continue with the question period, with Senator Doyle.
[English]
Senator Doyle: Thank you for being here. If you are to be congratulated for nothing else, planting a billion trees is something you should be congratulated for. It’s great.
We were recently in Quebec and Nova Scotia on a fact-finding mission. We talked to a number of people who manage woodlots, public and private, and we were told they are managed differently from a sustainability perspective or point of view.
Given J.D. Irving, Limited owns quite a deal of forest land, could you describe to what extent your best practice management ensures the sustainability of the forest that you manage and own?
Mr. Adams: Yes. All of our forest management areas are managed under sustainability guidelines. Each one of our areas is under a 25-year management plan. In the preparation for a management plan you’re projecting forest conditions out 100 years. That is how they all work. We want to ensure sustainability of all the forest types that we manage over that time frame. It heavily uses geographic information systems and inventories and integrating new technologies all the time. And the key to it is understanding the forest types we have and doing the appropriate silviculture associated with each. The planting of trees happens primarily in conifer-dominated forests and it doesn’t happen in all the conifer-dominated harvested areas. Hardwoods are managed primarily under selection harvesting wherever possible, wherever we have the right age classes. It’s really trying to be sensitive to the ecology of that particular forest type.
We also maintain age class distributions. We don’t want all young of any one forest type. We have mature and very old forest targets for each of the forest types that we manage in the areas. That is it in a nutshell.
Senator Doyle: When you are tree planting these days, I would imagine you would take into account climate change. When you take into climate change, I would imagine that would influence the type of planting that you would get involved in; that is, the type of species that you would plant or replant in those areas that you have harvested? You have to take into account that a tree will take about 30 years to grow?
Mr. Adams: About 30 to 45.
Senator Doyle: So you have to do a lot of pretty detailed projections sometimes to try to determine what kind of species of trees might be the best adaptable to the climate at that time and what you might be able to sell or not sell. I guess all that goes into your management practices, right?
Mr. Adams: It absolutely does. You try to make the best decision you can on the ground. A lot of it is mixing species today. That certainly wasn’t the case 25 or 30 years ago, but most of the areas where we’re planting today we’re planting a mixture of species suitable for the site. And the genetics program is very important because we’re looking for seed sources that will be stable over a range of environments. There are predictions that some species will fare less well under the climate predictions. I believe that to be true, but there is a huge range of variation within a given species and there will be some segments of those populations that do very well.
Senator Doyle: I see.
Senator Gagné: I was looking at the graph that shows the total CO2 emissions. I noticed that it was decreasing when you look at the 1990s compared to the year 2011. It is on the third page. You see a decrease.
Mr. Adams: Yes.
Senator Gagné: Then the lowest point is in 2011 and then it starts to increase in the total CO2 emissions over the past four years. Could you explain that? Are you increasing at a slow rate? Do you see a tendency of CO2 emissions creeping up again?
Mr. Adams: The very low dip was likely associated with modernization that went on and downtime. Why in 2015 it has crept up a bit, I’m not entirely sure. It could possibly be the mix of products. The mills, particularly the pulp mill, produce softwood, maple pulp and mixed hardwood and I’m not sure how much that affects the energy consumption.
Senator Gagné: Is there an increase in production? Could that be one of the reasons?
Mr. Adams: There was modernization initiated a couple of years ago that’s increasing, particularly the soft craft pulp production at our mill in Saint John. Again, so much of the steam is generated by burning biomass. That has been a major change in those facilities.
Senator Pratte: I would like to pursue Senator Doyle’s line of questioning. In your presentation, sir, you state that “anticipating impact at a particular forest level is difficult considering uncertainty around models and the complexity of interactions of average temperature change and extremes, precipitation, insects and disease,” and so on.
Could you explain what is it for one particular forest that you use in your models? What is the information that you have about the climate for the next 100 years? What is the data you have and you use and what is the information that is missing or that you simply do not use because it is not reliable or whatever?
Mr. Adams: One of the things is people talk about frequency of severe storms. That is a difficult thing to put a clear fix on. It is the same with fire summers so you get a large fire year or not. In the case of fire, it’s by maintaining our own infrastructure to be able to help, along with the provincial effort.
The most complicated thing is how insect and disease populations will respond to a changing climate. The way we deal with that is by looking at sensitivity analyses. If it has a positive effect, then what will that do with the populations and what impact will that have on the forest? It is largely through doing sensitivity analyses around what is a reasonable range of possibilities and then seeing how that affects things like your harvest levels and all those sorts of things.
Senator Pratte: But you know that for a particular area in New Brunswick the temperature will rise half a degree centigrade over 100 years. Is that your starting point?
Mr. Adams: Yes. We believe that the climate will change and we know the specific forest types in each of the general areas that we operate. I don’t know that, especially in the next 30 or 40 years, how much of a dramatic shift you are likely to experience, but that’s where it goes back to working with the genetics and understanding the variability that we have and just trying to ensure that the silviculture activities create a resilient forest. Shortening the rotations exposes you to a shorter period of risk.
For instance, we don’t say, “I think the climate will go up this many degrees therefore it will cause this much difference in the growth of the forest.” It isn’t that sophisticated. I wouldn’t even know where to start.
Senator Pratte: You are adapting to whatever happens. You need to be ready?
Mr. Adams: Yes. On pests, in particular, it is running sensitivity analyses and saying what are the various extremes that you could experience and would I do anything differently as a result of that.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: First of all, I would like to apologize for being late.
Mr. Adams, I think that the Irving company should be congratulated with respect to forest revitalization. However, without judging what other industry players are doing in the fight against GHGs, do you consider it to be more of a matter of will and vision than a matter of financial means?
[English]
Mr. Adams: The company owners are very strong land stewards and they have a very regional focus. They want to be in business in the region in 50 years’ time, not just from the standpoint of creating wealth but from the standpoint of the environment. I could point to numerous different initiatives that we have, whether it’s Atlantic salmon with respect to research on biodiversity and a number of things. Basically, it’s about being good land stewards.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Would you say that the private property model, compared to that of Crown-owned property, has had the strongest impact on engagement with the fight against climate change?
[English]
Mr. Adams: In my opinion, it’s a little bit a matter of your perspective on it. Perhaps a privately held piece of land tends to be more restricted in geography, and the person owning the land will have a very vested interest in what is going to happen on that land.
When you get into some of the large public ownerships, it’s such a large area, with many conflicting agendas with respect to that. I can certainly understand where it’s very difficult to respond on the ground to a specific concern in a small area.
Senator Oh: Thank you, Mr. Adams. Some witnesses have indicated that a challenge of the agricultural sector with respect to a carbon pricing mechanism is the difficultly of efficiently measuring greenhouse gas emissions resulting from their operational activities.
Are you facing similar challenges in the forestry sector? If that is happening, how do you address these challenges?
Mr. Adams: Yes. Again, J.D. Irving, Limited is very vertically integrated, so tracing the various aspects of carbon accounting isn’t easy, but the data is there if you want it. That’s how we were able to do those analyses across our entire company, through everything from energy associated with harvesting, transportation, road construction, all these things.
We were probably able to get a better fix on that than a lot of compartmentalized players may be able to, but I think largely most places will go to national databases to use average figures associated with various emissions.
Senator Oh: Just out of curiosity, how many people do you employ in the forestry sector alone at J.D. Irving?
Mr. Adams: The number that we quote here is 7,800 people through the forest products businesses in New Brunswick. There would be others in Nova Scotia and the State of Maine as well, but the largest portion is in New Brunswick.
Senator Oh: That’s only in the forestry sector?
Mr. Adams: Yes, who are working in the forest and mills, transportation.
Senator Doyle: I was wondering about some of the terms that you use here -- pre-commercial thinning, commercial thinning -- and I think it would be beneficial for the committee to have you explain them -- I know it would be for me. What is involved in tending?
You use that term a great deal. I have a feeling there’s a little bit more to it than what I think. What is involved in tending an area of forest? Does it involve fertilizing? Do you actually fertilize? I guess you do.
Mr. Adams: No, actually.
Senator Doyle: You don’t fertilize forestry areas?
Mr. Adams: With tending, I’m really speaking about giving the trees enough room to grow so they aren’t competing so strongly with one other.
When I use the term “pre-commercial thinning,” those are areas where we’ve harvested and there is sufficient natural regeneration that we believe will form a healthy new forest. That would involve people going in with brush saws and spacing the trees out to give them room to grow.
Commercial thinning can come in at either natural regeneration or planted trees. That’s generally in the 20- to 25-year age window. We will go in with small harvesting equipment and harvest wood that is processed for forest products, and it leaves a much better stand to carry on for harvesting another 15 years out.
Senator Doyle: Your graph indicates here a 46 per cent reduction in GHG emissions in your industrial operations. Combined with forestry operations, you would actually absorb more carbon than what you would emit, I suppose.
Mr. Adams: Yes.
Senator Doyle: I guess the only thing that could change that in the foreseeable future is some kind of forest fire catastrophe that might occur or a large insect infestation that might throw off your numbers somewhat. Is that right?
Mr. Adams: That’s right.
Senator Doyle: For the time being, you’re saying that you actually absorb more carbon than you emit, which is quite a statement, really.
Mr. Adams: Over a million tonnes a year for the next 50 years.
[Translation]
The Chair: Mr. Adams, at the beginning of the meeting, you mentioned an agreement between the four maritime provinces regarding the problem of spruce budworm infesting a southern part of Quebec, including the Gaspé Peninsula and Matapedia.
What response have you received from the federal government? First of all, have you obtained a response or are you still waiting for one?
[English]
Mr. Adams: We’re waiting anxiously for an answer.
[Translation]
The Chair: How long do you have to salvage trees affected by the spruce budworm? These trees can be of some utility in sawmills. How much time do you have, from the beginning, to salvage the trees?
[English]
Mr. Adams: From the time the tree dies, you’ve got two or three years maximum. It takes several years to actually kill the tree, but once it’s dead, the rot sets in and it loses.
[Translation]
The Chair: Can you safely harvest wood affected by the spruce budworm in your sawmills? Is there any danger of contamination for other types of wood? Once the tree is dried out by the spruce budworm, does it leave or does it stay in the bark?
[English]
Mr. Adams: No, the spruce budworm remains on the small branches and foliage which stay in the wood. When you have a dead stand of timber, the best thing you can do, wherever possible, is harvest it as fast as you can.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you so very much, Mr. Adams, for your testimony. Our committee is still studying forestry and agriculture and the role that these sectors play in the issue of carbon and GHG emissions. If you had one recommendation for us on GHGs from the point of view of forestry, what would it be?
[English]
Mr. Adams: From a standpoint of adaptation and climate change, I think we need to transition from studying what might happen to what are the strong, proactive things that you can do on the ground today that will put you in better stead. That’s the transition that has to happen in the discussion.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you very much for your testimony, and please send our best to the people of Irving, to your working men and women. Keep up your good work. Thank you.
(The committee adjourned.)