Bill C-33 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999

This enactment amends the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 to provide for the efficient regulation of fuels.
It also provides for a periodic and comprehensive review of the environmental and economic aspects of biofuel production in Canada by a committee of Parliament.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, our week devoted to action on the environment and health of Canadians is proving to be a success. We just passed Bill C-33 at report stage with the support of two of the other three parties. This is our bill requiring that by 2010 5% of gasoline and by 2012 2% of diesel fuel and home heating oil be comprised of renewable fuels. It represents an important part of our plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2020. Debate of this bill at third reading will now be able to commence tomorrow.

We have also started to debate two bills to improve the safety of food, consumer products and medical products in Canada.

On Monday we debated Bill C-52, to create the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act and yesterday we debated Bill C-51, to modernize the Food and Drugs Act.

We also introduced Bill C-54, to promote safety and security with respect to human pathogens and toxins. We will continue to debate these bills today and tomorrow.

During these uncertain economic times to the south, our government has led the way on the economy by taking decisive and early action over the past six months to pay down debt, reduce taxes to stimulate the economy and create jobs, and provide targeted support to key industries. In keeping with our strong leadership on the economy, next week will be maintaining a competitive economy week.

We plan to debate the following bills intended to enhance the competitiveness of certain sectors of the Canadian economy: our Bill C-23, at third reading stage, to amend the Canada Marine Act; our Bill C-5, at report stage, on liability in case of a nuclear incident; and our Bill C-14, at second reading stage, to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act.

We will also debate at second reading Bill C-32, which modernizes the Fisheries Act, Bill C-43, which amends the Customs Act, and Bill C-39, which amends the Canada Grain Act. We will also begin to debate Bill C-46. This is our bill to free western barley producers from the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly by giving them the freedom to market their own products. We will debate at third reading our bill to amend the Aeronautics Act, Bill C-7.

My friend, the member for Wascana, the Liberal House leader, said that government business and the doing of business in the House of Commons appeared to end on Tuesday. That is because next Wednesday and Thursday will be opposition days, and I would like to allot them as such at this time.

In terms of the question he raised with regard to Bill C-293, which is a private member's bill, I understand it is scheduled to come before the House in early May. At that time the House will have an opportunity to deal with the matter.

In terms of estimates and witnesses appearing before committee of the whole, the government does have to designate those to occur before May 31. Late last night I finally received notice of which two departments were identified and we will soon be advising the House of the dates that will be scheduled for consideration of those matters in committee of the whole.

Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

It being 3:05 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at report stage of Bill C-33. The question is on Motion No. 2.

Call in the members.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-33, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of Motion No. 2.

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois presented a motion that would force the government to ensure that if Bill C-33 passes, the implementation of the regulations would not increase the proportion of Canada's corn production currently dedicated to ethanol production.

Will the government act responsibly on the issue of the current food crisis and support this motion?

Biofuels

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, our government has a consistent green strategy when it comes to biofuels.

The Conservative government's objective for biofuels is equivalent to taking one million vehicles off the road.

In addition to having a positive impact on the environment, biofuel production helps the economy of our regions and gives farming families a source of income.

Contrary to what some people have recently suggested, biofuel production in Canada has no adverse effect on food production. After all, even when we achieve our targets for biofuel production, 95% of Canadian farmland will continue to produce food.

Above and beyond current biofuel production, Canada must become a leader in producing the next generation of biofuels. That is why the Conservative government invested more than $500 million in the development of these new technologies. That is far more than the Bloc Québécois will ever do.

I encourage my Bloc Québécois colleagues to be consistent for once and support Bill C-33, since, after all—

Canada Consumer Product Safety Act

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak to Bill C-52, the Canadian consumer product safety act. I will touch on some points that others have briefly mentioned.

The bill would modernize consumer protection in Canada and deals with prohibitions related to manufacturing, importing, selling advertising, packaging and labelling consumer products, including those that are a danger to human health and safety. This would make it easier to identify safe products.

On the surface, everyone would agree with that particular philosophy. However, the devil is in the detail and we need to talk about the details of a fairly complex act. I look forward to hearing some of the government members who have not yet spoken to the bill.

This area has not been revised since 1969. However, as the previous member from the Bloc mentioned, a number of crises have occurred and the government needed to act.

Before I begin my remarks, I must disagree with a comment made by an NDP member when he said that he could not find products labelled “made in Canada”. Sometimes there is the opposite problem. In agriculture, in particular, we can buy a bottle of olives that says “product of Canada” but olives are not grown here. The big problem in the agricultural industry and other industries is that, depending on the number of components, it appears to Canadians that they are buying something that was fully produced in Canada when it was not. Separate from this initiative, we need to take a close look at labelling to ensure that Canadian agriculture and business are protected by labelling.

A number of problems with products have occurred recently in Canada that are good examples of the necessity for this act. We had the toothpaste from South Africa that contained substances that were a danger to human health. We also had Fisher-Price products containing materials that were dangerous and toxic to children. Mattel, the American toy manufacturer, had to recall several million toys in the U.S. that were made in China. Some of the toys contained too much lead, such as the Barbie dolls and Geo Tracks toys. Fortunately, all these products have been recalled because they were dangerous to children.

The Auditor General looked into this in 2006 and pointed out all the problems with Health Canada and its ability to control dangerous products. She said that many of the managers of the product safety program were unable to fill their mandate because they lacked the tools. She said that they did not have enough human resources, that the resources they had were not used very well, and that the legislation was not very effective in protecting Canadians. The government has known about this since 2006.

Obviously, there have been problems with a number of products in Canada, and later in my speech I will talk about some more products, but there is also the issue of human resources. A number of members in the committee have raised the concern that it is fine to put in all sorts of new regulations and have inspections at every level of the process but if there are no inspectors and no funds to do that it does not change anything. There will be a lot of questions asked as to how the government plans to implement this because it has not really provided that detail yet.

In relation to inspectors, we want to ensure they are not overridden because they caused a problem. In the case of nuclear safety, an inspector found there was something wrong and the government simply proposed legislation to overrule the chief inspector and, in fact, eventually fired her. Therefore, that regime would not work if that is the type of attitude the government would bring to this bill.

A lot of regulations are involved. I am not against regulations but the bill I was talking about earlier today, Bill C-33, would have allowed the government to legislate certain things by regulations.

I have a constituent in my riding, Tony, who often approaches me and says that Canada is very dangerous because it rules by regulations, unlike Europe where everything has to be done by law. Regulations of course can be done by governor in council. Fortunately, we do have a committee, chaired by a very able chair right now from Scarborough, on the scrutiny of regulations, that has parliamentary overview in that respect, but it does not make policy decisions and regulations can be made out of public oversight as far as policies go.

That is why in relation to all the bills we are discussing today and any bills that have regulations, members would like to see what the government is planning, what the general plans are related to those regulations and when they are coming. If the whole bill, like the last one, depends on regulations, then once again nothing will happen if they are not coming forward. They can have such a dramatic effect, as we talked about in the last bill related to a world food shortage. Members of Parliament would really like to know what those regulations are.

In this particular bill there are a number of things that will be decided by regulation. Certainly in committee, I am sure the three opposition parties will be asking the minister and government officials more questions about that. This will give them a head's up to be prepared in committee to explain the implementation of this, because it is a fairly complex and lengthy bill, and has a number of resources attached to it but there is no outline in the plan. I think it is $113 million, but there is no outlined plan on how those resources would be used.

Would it be deployed on inspection resources? As I was saying earlier, this certainly needs a number of new resources to allow this bill to have any effect. How much money is there for that? I am sure the officials will be able to give us more information on that.

This bill would also reverse the burden of proof and impose that on the manufacturers, and of course it should be the duty of manufacturers to make sure that what they produce is safe for Canadians. I do not think anyone would disagree with that and I look forward to the agriculture committee to hearing from the Canadian Manufacturers Association on these types of conditions.

The legislation will also force manufacturers and importers of consumer products to test the safety of products regularly, and most importantly to disclose the test results. Once again, if dealt with effectively and efficiently, this will increase consumer protection for Canadians while still allowing the products to be available.

It is a bit of a question or a concern though, and once again we will want to see how the plan will work. A positive aspect of the bill is that it deals with inspections through the entire chain of production: advertising, shipping, assembly, labelling, and putting the product out. There are all these different stages and they have to be traceable. They must be documented. Of course, I hope there is not too much bureaucracy there for the business, but all this has to be documented and it is good that these stages can be traced.

We will have to discuss this more at committee, but my question is, how will there be a level playing field between Canadian products and products from overseas?

This would not always be the case, and often is not the case, but if all the components of a particular product were made in Canada and all the stages occurred in Canada, then it would be much easier for us to inspect and regulate that process. However, in this internationally competitive world, where everything is crossing borders and components are crossing borders with just in time production, there are all sorts of components and processes that are not in Canada.

How does the government plan to ensure that those parts of the processes can be dealt with so that the products that are coming from overseas have the same type of scrutiny as the ones in Canada at the various levels? If that is not possible, because of individual sovereignties, would there be inspections coming into the country with an increased enhancement in that respect? I would like an outline of how that would all work.

Another item that the bill allows is increased fines. I do not think anyone would disagree with that. I think $5,000 was the limit before and that could just be considered as a cost of doing business. Some huge manufacturers could accept that as just a cost of business, just a charge that they have to pay. Now the fines have been increased up to $5 million and two years in jail. If they are putting lives of Canadians at risk, putting the health of Canadians or their children at risk, obviously we want severe penalties for that.

These types of deterrents in other countries are higher at this point, until the bill passes, if it is to pass. They are higher in many places other than Canada. Deterrents in the United States and the European Union are much tougher. In Europe the fines can be as high as 5% of the company's annual revenue. At this time the United States imposes fines that go as high as several million dollars.

There will also be safety reports regarding all supply sources and components of a product. The system has all the features of a traceability system. Once again, I think this is good and important as long as it does not get into the hands of overzealous officials who were to make it a huge impediment to the business surviving.

We want to be able to trace it. If a product is determined to be dangerous and the company were then to go out of business because it was a shady-type of company, maybe organized crime, a gang, or an organized type of operation, that brought in a whole bunch of cheap, dangerous products and then just vanished, then the government would have these traceability documents. It would be able to do the effective recall and find out where the products are. In fact, with the voluntary recalls that are occurring, how are we to know that everything has been recalled? If we have the traceability elements, then we know where the product is, so we know it has all been recalled.

I have just a couple of examples about the cost of making these conditions and why it has to be effective and efficient. We have an issue right now with fertilizer retailers in Canada. Fertilizers can be dangerous, they can be explosive. Fortunately, there are very good regulations, some that the industry is imposing on itself which is excellent, to ensure safety. Of course, to put in these provisions, these increase huge prices for farmers and retailers. We have a program in the Canadian ports to put those provisions in to help to pay for those. We could also have similar government provisions to help put in the provisions to protect fertilizers and those types of chemicals. I encourage the government to review that issue.

Another example we have in my riding pertains to an international product coming in from the United States related to housing. It needs the Canadian safety standards approval, which is good. It should be done thoroughly, efficiently and effectively. In the north we only have a several month building season, and this is during a housing crisis where people are without homes. If it is not done in a timely fashion, if it is not done quickly and effectively, as I hope it will be in this particular case, this could result in people being left homeless for another year until construction could start.

Above all in our considerations, and I do not think anyone would disagree, we have to make absolutely sure that products are safe for our children. Some of the examples I will give later on are related to children. Children are not always underfoot of their parents, and they do things that adults would not necessarily do, like chewing everything under the sun, or putting everything in their mouths. We have to ensure that things are absolutely safe for children, and that this law will be used to that particular effect.

There are millions of products on the market produced in Canada or imported. In modern times the manufacturers would not want to produce anything that is dangerous. Nevertheless, products do slip through the cracks or there is the rare criminal element or a person who is not caring. Therefore, there are products that show a need for this bill.

Since 2005 there have been 34 products that contained lead risk, 26 products were a risk in terms of choking, 5 products led to head injuries, 5 that led to the risk of laceration, 3 that could have meant internal damage from magnets, 3 that put people at risk of being burned, 3 that put people at risk in terms of entrapment, 2 that put people in danger in terms of puncture or impalement, 2 that could have caused strangulations, 2 that led to bacterial risk, and 1 toxic chemical risk. That is why it is important that we put the bill in place and that it is done in a realistic and effective manner.

The bill is somewhat intertwined with Bill C-51 which we will be discussing next. I will be bringing comments forward in more detail when we get to Bill C-51, but we have given some feedback about the onerousness of the controls in these bills. That is something we will be looking at in committee.

A couple of my constituents have sent me emails that they think these bills are targetting at substantially reducing or putting huge barriers on natural health products; that they give almost police state-like powers to the government; that they have huge fines; that there can be seizing authority without warrant which is actually in Bill C-51; that the government wants to bypass Parliament approval, which is what I was talking about earlier with regard to regulation; that it can seize one's property, charge storing and shipping charges; and that it can do these things by entering one's property without warrant and so on.

I will be bringing forward those concerns from my constituents. They will be more related to Bill C-51 but these bills are connected.

Similarly, other feedback I have received is from a corporation called Truehope which has products related to people with mental illness. Once again, it wants to raise the alarm related to gross changes to the Food and Drugs Act as outlined in Bill C-51 and as referenced in Bill C-52. I will not go into all the details, but I have them available if someone would like to read them. These are things that should be discussed at committee.

I also want to give some input on the bill from the Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada. This organization is certainly in support of the bill but it wants it amended to remove the proposed statutory exemption for tobacco companies. It states:

The era of special deals for tobacco companies is I hope long behind us. Yet this bill proposes a unique concession for tobacco manufacturers, one which would not be extended to any other manufacturing sector.

The Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada certainly wants this amendment put in the bill and we hope it will be called as a witness and we can explore that particular item. I hope the members of the health committee will ask the government officials when they appear before the committee with the minister as to the purpose of that exemption.

In closing, I would like to summarize three of my issues that need to be dealt with. One is the type of inspection and the number of inspections. The second is how we are going to protect the various chain of processes for products that come from overseas. The last issue is that right now, with the system of voluntary recalls, the government negotiates and the products are voluntarily recalled, and that has never been a problem.

I do not have a problem with the government having this authority, in that it should be able to act quickly, but often when people have the power to do something and do not do it they will be taken to court and will be involved in all sorts of litigation. I would not want inspectors constantly doing recalls for protection.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are now moving from the world food crisis to something that I believe is equally important for the House to address, which is consumer product safety.

We all have a responsibility to protect and promote the health and well-being of all Canadians, but there are some circumstances where the system we have today has not met that need.

Bill C-52, if I may just highlight the summary, modernizes the regulatory regime for consumer products in Canada and creates prohibitions with respect to the manufacturing, importing, selling, advertising, packaging and labelling of consumer products, including those that are a danger to human health and safety. The bill will make it easier to identify whether a consumer product is a danger and more effectively prevents or addresses the danger.

The Liberals will be supporting the bill at second reading to go to committee. There are some very serious questions that need to be addressed, which cannot be fully handled at second reading because we do not have the opportunity to have the opinion of the expert, the stakeholder and a broad range of people. I suspect that the committee, should the bill pass at second reading, will have a very lively debate and hearings on the issues related to consumer product safety.

I reviewed the minister's speech when he introduced the bill. He noted that the vast majority of suppliers that make, import, distribute and sell consumer products take safety very seriously. He also noted that it is basically because these businesses value their reputations. I suspect that is a logical conclusion.

However, problems can and do occur, and Canadians will recall that there were a number of incidences. One which I even raised in the House with the minister at the time had to do with high levels of lead in the paints on children's toys. Those were, I believe, coming from China, if I recall the details.

The fact remains that there are problems that can and do occur, and there have been a number of them. The bill is timely and appropriate for Parliament to look at, particularly since the Hazardous Products Act has not been thoroughly reviewed in some 40 years.

Issues are changing. Technology is changing. We have a responsibility to ensure that the regulatory framework that we have is in a position to prevent and detect, so we can protect the health and safety of Canadians.

As I indicated, there will be some questions regarding the bill. One of those would be with regard to the issue of introducing the power to effect a recall of products. That does not exist right now under the current legislation. This is done on a voluntary basis.

Members and the public will know that there are numerous examples of where companies voluntarily recall their products because they have identified a problem through incidents that have occurred that have been brought to their attention and that indicate that there is a prevalence which is unacceptable. If they value their reputation, obviously there are companies which will want to remediate the problems quickly so that they do not have any other significant impact on their ability to provide goods, services or otherwise conduct their business.

The concern about the power to recall is that it may turn out that this would be used excessively by inspectors. That becomes a problem if there are complaints. Depending on the criteria and the assessment process, there may in fact be a situation where the pendulum swings very far to the other side, to the extent that there are some unintended consequences to businesses, maybe some harm to a business simply because recalls are becoming more prevalent.

There is a significant move toward the American way, a litigious society. People are going to start going to the courts. There is the potential for lawsuits in the future rather than to negotiate a recall or action by the private sector that is currently done.

The point is whether or not there has to be some clarification about when the power can be used and some of the options we may want to consider. These are important areas that the committee would be able to explore with expert witnesses. The committee would be able to call specific witnesses to find out what is happening not only in other jurisdictions but in similar circumstances with other legislation with regard to remediating or dealing with a problem area.

The second area that would require some discussion at the health committee has to do with staffing requirements to deal with this new power of product recall. I have had an opportunity to look at Bill C-52, at least up to the section where it requires regulation, and I am going to speak about those in a moment.

The way the bill is currently structured, it will require the collaboration of border security agencies, Health Canada inspectors, as well as CFIA inspectors. Of these three groups, the one that is currently least able to deal with this on the inspection side is Health Canada. It has the lowest number of inspectors and the bill puts a lot of responsibility on Health Canada.

The first committee I was ever on was the health committee. I have had substantial involvement with Health Canada, whether it be on tobacco labelling, aboriginal health issues, or reproductive technologies. Bill C-13, the reproductive technologies bill, I think took about three years of our lives and, incidentally, the regulations that were required under Bill C-13 still have not been fully prepared, implemented and promulgated. The regulations in that bill on which we spent so much time still have not been fully implemented. I will speak a little more about regulations in a second.

There certainly is that issue of staff. Those are two of the items that should be dealt with regarding the committee consideration should this bill pass at second reading, which I believe it will.

It is easy to protect the health and well-being of Canadians and to ensure safety if we are prepared to go to the nth degree and establish all of the checks and balances and procedures using all of the tools that Parliament could authorize Health Canada to put into place. However, if we take it to its logical extreme, we get into a situation where the commercial activity has been impeded and all of a sudden a business cannot provide the goods and services it normally would because of the regulatory environment.

A very serious issue for parliamentarians to consider not only with this bill but with many others is whether or not there will be the unintended consequence of impeding economic activity by increasing a regulatory regime that is not justified by the issue we are trying to deal with. It is never black and white. It is never a matter of touching one thing to take care of another. We have to look beyond that and find out what the consequential implications may be.

The issue here is whether or not we are moving into a new regime of policing the commercial activity to the extent that it will impose a regulatory regime. We do not know what that is right now and we do not know the extent to which it is going to be used. As a matter of fact, we will not know that until after the bill goes through all stages and receives royal assent because that is the way things are happening.

However, committees can, as the health committee did with the reproductive technologies bill, say that no regulations shall be promulgated unless they are sent to the health committee for review and comment in advance. Unfortunately, in the case of the reproductive technologies bill, the committee had no authority specifically in the bill or from the minister to make any changes to the regulations. The committee could only review and comment, and that is a problem.

If regulations are enabled by the legislation, but the detail gives us something different that we did not understand to be the case, Parliament has no tools whatsoever to deal with what I would call, and maybe it is strong language, draconian regulations. There may be some unintended consequences, such as an impact on legitimate businesses by increasing the burden of the regulations, the responsibility of the businesses to know what those regulations are, to monitor them and to ensure that their businesses are compliant. It is a very significant cost to business to understand and to know the law.

We are dealing with an area which, from a lay perspective, Canadians will certainly want to ensure that Parliament and the Government of Canada have taken appropriate steps to provide for the safety of consumer products. There are certainly a number of areas in which there will be some concern by the stakeholders who will be impacted by this bill.

I did not have a copy of the bill readily available so I printed out a copy. The bill itself is at least 48 pages long, but I was scanning it and I came to the part dealing with regulations. This is something that I raised previously in the debate on Bill C-33. Under “Regulations”, clause 38(1) of Bill C-52 says that the governor in council may make regulations for carrying out the purposes or provisions of the act. It does not say it will, or has to, or shall. It says may. I have always questioned that.

In this regard, because there is the potential that we are expanding the responsibilities of the border services agency, Health Canada and CFIA, all of a sudden the regulatory activity, and the cost and coordination of it, is going to create a significant demand of human resources and a significant risk in some respects to impeding or slowing down the current velocity of commercial activity, particularly with regard to imports.

There will also be differences in standards around the world. Certain products sold to Canadians have components made in various jurisdictions, but there is a final producer who puts them all together. Where the legal obligation and the rights and responsibilities lie also become very interesting questions to deal with.

It is important to remind members that the purpose of the bill is to protect the public by addressing and preventing dangers posed to human health and safety by consumer products that are circulated within Canada and those that are imported. As I indicated, we have products that are imported as finished products, but also components which go into other products. The bill covers everything that we should be concerned about in terms of public safety.

The current consumer product safety system functions on a voluntary basis, as I indicated. If a product is dangerous or poses a health risk, the corporation can issue a recall. This bill would prohibit the sale, import, manufacture, packaging, labelling, and advertising of consumer products that may pose a risk to consumers. While voluntary recalls would continue to happen, inspectors named under the act or by the minister would be able to order a recall of a consumer product.

I must admit that when I hear about a product recall in the media, I have often wondered how much it really costs. I have often wondered how much of that cost is effectively passed on to the consumer. Public safety is certainly an issue, but in terms of adding to the economic cost of a product increases more in recalls that may not be totally warranted and may be adding to the cost of the consumer product as well. Obviously due diligence should be used in exercising this extraordinary power.

The bill would also create a tracing mechanism. It would force corporations, manufacturers and importers to keep all documents containing information needed to identify the origin of the product and where it was distributed. This would ensure that when a recall was made, the products would be easily removed from the store shelves. Knowing the origin of the product would help to enforce the act and would prevent further occurrences. These provisions make some sense.

The bill would also substantially increase the fines and penalties, something that this House has dealt with significantly in a number of ministries not just through the amendments to the criminal justice act, but I can think of other ministries where fines or penalties are proposed.

Deterrence is an important aspect of the dialogue. At committee I am going to be looking for an assessment of whether or not the proposed increases in the fines and penalties when a product is deemed unsafe would have the intended effect based on the experience of other jurisdictions, other countries, or the experts who are proposing them, if there is not any research on that particular aspect.

The bill would also allow the minister to seek an injunction when an act is being committed or to prevent someone from committing an act that contravenes the bill. There is an enabling provision in the bill regarding the minister.

Inspectors would be given extraordinary powers to search and seize. They could effectively search any place they believe is involved in manufacturing, importing, packaging, storing, advertising, selling, labelling, testing or transporting consumer goods. A warrant would only be necessary in cases where an inspector wished to search the dwelling.

This is very serious. When there is that kind of list of broad-sweeping regulatory powers, we want to be absolutely sure it is not going a little too far.

This is a very difficult bill. It is a very long bill for us to assess and on which to give informed opinions on some of its aspects at second reading, but I will look very carefully, as I am sure all members will, to the proceedings at the health committee to find out what the facts are. Hopefully we will have better consumer protection for Canadians.

Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not want to take away from the serious issue about which the member is talking, but we are at report stage and third reading of Bill C-33. Debate is supposed to be extremely focused on the issue at hand and these meandering type of comments in debates do not have any place at third reading.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise to speak to Bill C-33, the amendments to Canadian Environmental Protection Act. I will use my time to speak to a few of the issues.

When the bill was first envisioned, I do not think it was controversial. However, since then, a lot of ramifications have come in to play, in particular those outlined by the opposition critic for foreign aid. I will talk later about the effects on the world food supply and world food crisis, the interrelations with the bill and the tweaking of it.

For the public watching and hearing the different points of views and concerns, the first thing to remember is the bill would only change the regulatory framework. It would not in itself do anything other than that. It would set the stage and the legislative ability for the government to act, but it would not cause any action. Nothing would change until the power provided under the bill would be used.

Almost everyone in the House, with the exception of a few members, understands that the regulations then can be used most effectively when the results of current scientific and statistical studies show the best use of those regulations, the best allocation of funds, regulations and legislation related to biofuels, biodiesel, ethanol and various products.

The bill only would allow the government to make regulations related to the exporting and composition of fuels. I think most people would agree that it is good for the government to have the ability to control these items. However, then the debate will be over what the government does with that control.

Current debates are around the world food crisis, the impact ethanol and biodiesels have on that and the use of waste by the next generation. I think most members of the House, including the minister, because he set aside $500 million for it, would prefer to have biodiesels produced not from items that could be food or food producing soils particularly, but from the waste products of those soils. The various alternative fuels, low emission fuels, can be produced from animal waste, plant waste and agricultural waste, such as straw, husks, wood waste from sawmills, switchgrass and cellulose waste. There is a great hydrogen plant in Ottawa.

I do not imagine too many people would disagree that there can be a great symbiotic relationship between agriculture and the use of waste products to ultimately produce a cleaner environment. Those waste products could be used for something productive and we would have much lower emissions. As we know the world is in a crisis in regard to greenhouse gas emissions. It affects my riding in the north more dramatically than anywhere else in the world. Species are becoming extinct. They are moving their ranges, which then threatens aboriginal peoples who depend on a certain species to be in a certain location at a certain time. It is causing havoc with the infrastructure. Therefore, we need bills such as this, initiatives that will reduce greenhouse gases.

Notwithstanding a lot of the scientific advisers have been cancelled by the government, we need to do a good scientific analysis on the actual effectiveness and efficiency of the various proposals to reduce greenhouse gases and other noxious elements in our air.

Everyone is quite aware that there is a world food crisis and it is the link to ethanol, which is part of the debate. However, I want to reiterate what many other speakers have said, which is we have another important bill before Parliament, Bill C-293. Hopefully everyone will support it and get it through quickly. It targets Canada's aid to the areas where it was originally intended to go. Our former agriculture minister, Susan Whelan, when she was the CIDA minister, worked in this direction to ensure that aid went to the right areas, and food would be one of those.

I want to talk about one area of the food crisis that has not been mentioned in the debate. It is a bit peripheral, but it is a very important crisis to a number of people in the world. That is the Burmese people in refugee camps on the Thailand border, where I visited in January. About 140,000 Burmese people are running from a horrendous dictatorship. All members of our Parliament have been very—

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what I was suggesting with cellulosic ethanol was it was in its infancy. I was putting it in the context of what was happening in British Columbia, with thousands and thousands of hectares of standing wood being killed by the pine beetle. I know there is a substantial amount of research currently being conducted at the University of British Columbia, in particular, for the use of this wood. I agree it is unlikely to come to market in the short term.

My understanding of Bill C-33 is there are some short term initiatives in it as well as some long term initiatives. That is where I am calling, again, through the member Western Arctic, for some oversight. Although there is some proven technology, much of the work going on right now in this area is new, emerging and experimental. We need the time and the oversight to ensure we have a good understanding of the impact.

Again, I am talking about the reasonable responsibility of members in the House, as I talked about in the voter identification bill, to not pass legislation that ends up as something with which cannot live.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-33 and specifically to the amendment proposed by the member for Western Arctic calling for a review of the progress made in the preparation and implementation of the regulations.

I appreciate the comments by my colleague from Mississauga around the need for this amendment. I am well aware that other committees have taken a proactive stance as this regulatory process has evolved. I commend the member for Western Arctic for inserting this amendment so the House can oversee what essentially would be a blank cheque.

It is important to have oversight considering some of the other legislation that has come before the House where I would suggest that perhaps the House did not do the due diligence that was required. I only need to point to the voter identification bill. New Democrats raised some very serious concerns around that legislation. Lo and behold, the government had to bring forward another bill to fix the problem in the original bill because it had effectively eliminated the ability of about a million voters in Canada to register to vote.

I understand there is continuing disenfranchisement in that voter identification bill. We know that homeless people and many first nations will have difficulty voting in the next federal election unless more fixes are put into place.

I would argue that New Democrats are doing the due diligence that other members in this House have chosen not to do by insisting on some oversight on this bill.

In case people think this is merely New Democrats talking, I want to point to an editorial in The Star today. It states:

But in their rush to biofuels, the politicians have overlooked the drawbacks of turning food into fuel.

Although biofuels do emit less greenhouse gas than regular gasoline, environmentalists point out that this comparison does not take into account the emissions coming from the farm machinery and fertilizer required to “grow” these new fuels and the trucks for transporting them.

It goes on to state:

Parliament should heed NDP Leader...and take more time to consider the implications of Bill C-33 before passing it.

David Suzuki, in September 2007, said:

Biofuels have many advantages, but we have to look at all our options and make sure we make the best choices to ensure a more sustainable future.

...attempting to save the planet by wholesale switching to biofuels like ethanol and biodiesel may unintentionally have the opposite effect.

The Pembina Institute stated:

Many concerns have been raised about the environmental and social impacts of un-controlled production of bio-fuels. Pembina believes strict criteria need to be in place to ensure these impacts are minimized.

The parliamentary secretary has stood a number of times today and said that New Democrats have flip-flopped since 2006. New Democrats have said that there is new and emerging information that requires this House to take a strong, hard look at this legislation. We have new information about what is happening in the world around rising food prices and new information around production and all those factors need to be considered.

In committee, the member for British Columbia Southern Interior proposed a number of amendments that, unfortunately, the Conservatives and the Liberals chose not to support. Some of those amendments would have dealt with some of these other emerging issues. I will not read all the amendments put forward by the member but I do want to touch on a couple of them because they are issues being raised in my riding of Nanaimo--Cowichan. I know other members are getting calls, letters and emails about them.

One of the amendments reads:

prohibiting the use of genetically modified grains, oilseeds or trees for biofuel production....

The next one reads:

prohibiting the use of lands protected by federal legislation and other sensitive biodiverse lands for biofuel production;

preserving the biodiversity of lands used in biofuel production;

prohibiting the importation of grains or oils for use in biofuel production;

establishing criteria in relation to the environmental sustainability of biofuel production to ensure compliance with internationally recognized best practices that promote the biodiversity and sustainability of land, air and water;

In British Columbia, fortunately under Dave Barrett and the provincial New Democrats, they instituted the agricultural land reserve in an effort to ensure our farmland was protected. I do have farms in my riding. My riding is a rural-urban community and there are a number of farms there.

What we have found over the years is that the ALR, the agricultural land reserve, that was put in place is being eroded. There has been no net loss of land but there has been a substitution of land that is less productive, less arable. The amendments proposed by the member for British Columbia Southern Interior were partly around the fact that we cannot generate new land. What we need to do is ensure the farmland that is available in Canada is put to the best possible use and, as well, that farmers can maintain a decent living from their farming efforts.

In British Columbia, most of the policies that are made in Canada for agriculture do not take into account the fact of life in British Columbia where many of our farm holdings are small farm holdings. I would encourage this as an opportunity to examine the diversity of farming activity in Canada and how we protect that.

As well, British Columbia is in a unique position where we, unfortunately, have material that is available for Cellulosic. In an article from CleanTechnica, which was written in Colorado but equally applies to British Columbia, it talks about what is being done to prevent catastrophic wildfire while taking advantage of a clean energy opportunity. The article talks about several stories that hit the news wire this week about taking a collective hint at the growing conditions for a perfect storm for Cellulosic ethanol.

The virgin biofuel industry got a kick in the seat yesterday when a study in science confirmed that many environmentalists believe ethanol from corn and switchgrass could actually worsen climate change. The article goes on to state:

The cheapest, most logical, and most environmentally friendly way to make ethanol is to do so with waste...And thanks to the pine beetle epidemic, there is a wealth of small-diameter waste-wood in the Rocky Mountain West....

On April 1, 2008, in an article on The Tyee, it states, “Burn Trees to Light Homes”. It is talking about the fact that the pine beetle wood kill is a way to take the value of dead wood and create a viable energy opportunity. The article talks about the fact that in British Columbia there currently is a substantial amount of export to Europe on wood pellets. The pine beetle wood kill is an opportunity to take some of that waste-wood and turn it into a product that could be used both in British Columbia and for export.

Some science is required around the pine beetle waste-wood and some of the money that is being marked for renewable energy and sustainable energy strategies could be earmarked for research and development into the pine beetle waste-wood.

The sad comment is that in British Columbia our forestry sector is reeling. In the same Tyee article, it states that in the past year 34 sawmills in the province have closed permanently or indefinitely resulting in 10,000 job losses.

In my own riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan, we have had a number of companies in the last six months either lay off workers indefinitely or close permanently. Some have gone into receivership. I saw one of the grimmest sights that I have seen in recent memory in my riding last week. As I drove north on the highway, I saw a former sawmill operation site filled with forestry equipment that was being auctioned off because a logging company, which had been in business since the early 1900s manufacturing equipment for the forestry industry, had gone into receivership. Hundreds of pieces of equipment and vehicles on this lot were being auctioned off.

That is a grim reminder that in British Columbia we are seeing a massive transition in the forestry sector and we are simply not taking hold of that.

When we are talking about waste-wood as a Cellulosic ethanol, there is an opportunity to do something for forestry workers. Where is the money for a transition strategy for communities and workers?

We talked about this community trust money. I have talked to people in my riding and they have not seen one cent of it. We have workers today who are running out of employment insurance because my riding is in an area that is tagged on to another riding that has a very low unemployment rate and it is on the mainland. It is not like the workers in my riding can walk out their door and go next door to get a job. They are running out of their employment insurance. Where is the effort to actually ensure something happens?

The bill speaks to, in a variety of ways, an energy strategy. We should take a look at what has happened in British Columbia, with things like the pine beetle. We should talk about how we can help some of the workers make the transition into some other industry.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, certainly some of the items the member cited are relevant. For the assessment required under the proposed clause in Bill C-33, which is an amendment to the Environmental Protection Act, we have to look at the whole act to see the implications.

The member will recall that I talked about the fact that these regulations will never be seen by this place before we have to pass the bill. Subsection 3.2 says specifically, “Regulations made under section 93, 140”, section 140 being the relevant one to the report stage motion, “...may distinguish among any class of persons, works, undertakings, activities or substances, including fuels, that they may establish on the basis of any factor, including” and then it goes on to list quantities of releases, production capacity, technology, feedstocks used, the substance or fuel’s source, et cetera.

The question I would ask is, why did the report stage amendment not also require that the word “may” be changed to “shall” or “must”? This is optional; this is not mandatory under Bill C-33. Maybe we have not done the job fully.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague talked about not understanding why there would be regulations coming forward. Bill C-33 is an empty box that is going to be filled with the regulations that will guide the industry in the future. This is the case. There is nothing in this legislation that sets conditions or terms as to how the biofuel industry is going to develop in Canada.

Quite clearly, section 140 states:

The Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Minister, make regulations for carrying out the purposes of section 139...

Some portions of the act talk about the different types of regulations in the act, regulations made under sections 93 and 140, et cetera, quantities of released production capacity. The substance or the fuel source, interestingly enough, is not something that is going to be dealt with in the regulations. Under the regulations we are going to decide where the fuel is coming from. We are going to make a decision about whether biofuels are going to be a local product, a national product or an international product.

We are going to make those kinds of decisions in regulations rather than here in Parliament where those decisions should be made, such as the substance of the fuel's commercial destination, the substance of the fuel's physical and chemical properties, how much greenhouse gas emissions the fuel produces, the chemical properties.

Once again, through regulation later on, the government, rather than Parliament, is going to decide how our industry develops. That is why we put the oversight amendment forward, to provide parliamentarians with the opportunity to actually speak to the substance of this new industry. I would ask my hon. colleague, is that not a good enough reason to support having an oversight provision within this bill?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are currently debating Bill C-33, but more specifically a report stage amendment affecting section 140 of the act. I would like to remind the House what the amendment requires.

The current wording in Bill C-33 is that under subsection 6, within one year after the subsection comes into force and every two years thereafter, a comprehensive review of the environmental and economic aspects of biofuel production in Canada should be undertaken, et cetera.

The proposed amendment which we are debating at report stage is that in addition to the general requirement to review the environmental and economic aspects of biofuel, it would also include a review of the progress made in the preparation and implementation of the regulations referred to in subsection 140(1).

The situation is that regulations can be made from time to time. At this point I am not aware of regulations being proposed in regard to biofuel production, or what current regulations may exist under the EPA for that matter, simply because that bill would have to be before us at the same time. That is a predicament we have as legislators. When we deal with bills, we do not have available to us at the time regulations that are required and prescribed to be prepared under the legislation. Those things come after a bill gets royal assent. Parliamentarians in both Houses do not get an opportunity to look at regulations. They may have an opportunity to ask the officials to give them a general idea of what might be proposed, but it is a circular argument because the officials may very well say that we cannot know what the problem of the member is, as he indicated in his speech, about what the act requires.

Regulations are enabled by the legislation; it is not the reverse. We have a situation here where I am not exactly sure whether it is just a hope that should there be additional regulations proposed, if they were relevant to the section, that a review would be done. It is not clear to me right now the basis for the change, unless one knows what is being contemplated in terms of the proposed regulations.

Before we vote on this, I want to be informed and maybe other members do as well, about what might be there. Certainly in terms of the preparation of any regulations, we are never going to know that, but in terms of the implementation, it would presume that there are existing regulations which have not been implemented for some reason, that they are waiting for further data or whatever, and it is pretty hard to review something that has not been implemented.

This whole section does require a review one year after the section comes into force and every two years thereafter, so it may come into play somewhere down the road.

Having dealt with the report stage issue, I want to follow the line of debate at report stage with some of the comments that members have expressed with regard to the world food crisis. Some have decided that the world food shortage crisis we are going to discuss is in Canada. There is not a food crisis in Canada and I think we understand that. The public is very concerned about the balance between the use of agricultural land to produce crops for biofuel purposes.

The most prevalent source right now is corn. Corn obviously is a major staple used in food production and even in exported products. When we look at how the costs of various aspects of producing food or fuel work through the economy, it is not a simple thing of whether that corn is being used to feed people or to produce fuel, and whether one is causing some distress on the other in terms of the objectives.

Obviously the science is still being worked on, but the results are fairly clear that the benefits of corn based ethanol with regard to greenhouse gas emissions are not great. There are other forms of producing ethanol, such as from straw and even from municipal waste, which calls out for research. There will have to be a lot of work done to make sure there is an efficient and appropriate use of the crops that we grow not only in Canada but around the world. Canada could be a leader on the research side to ensure that the land use is appropriate and that we get the significant benefits through the research.

Bill C-33 proposes that all fuel have 5% ethanol content by 2010. Others have proposed that it be 10%. The bill would involve spending some $2.2 billion which would help ensure that farmers would be able to grow the crops that are applicable to their end use. It would also help build ethanol plants.

There are some interesting things going on in the area of biofuels, but we cannot ignore the food shortage problem. There are some arguments that maybe the current activity in Canada with regard to biofuels is affecting it, but the ethanol role with regard to food shortage actually is very small. We must take into account the rise in the cost of fuel. As the price per barrel of oil goes up and is at a record high, the cost of food goes up. All of a sudden the economics of food production and the impact on the whole food supply chain becomes very significant to the argument.

We cannot just say that growing a crop for biofuel purposes is causing a world food crisis. It is relevant and it depends on the magnitude, but there is such a large number of other factors that it is not a cause and effect. It is not black and white. It is not simple.

On top of that, we could probably make some arguments that if we do not deal with the greenhouse gas emissions problem and its impact on our environment, we will have more aberrant weather, more violent storms and more crops will be destroyed. It is almost a circular argument. It is very important to understand that this is not just a two variable equation.

In addition, I was doing a little research and found that the dietary habits in India and China are changing noticeably. In India and China more and more meat is being consumed. That line is going up, to the extent that if there is more consumption of meat, there is a need for more feed, which means that more crops need to be grown and more and more of the crops will be allocated to a significant population component of the world, being in India and China. The dietary habits in India and China will have more far-reaching implications on the demand for corn and other crops.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the report stage motion wants to add a further review item; that is, that the review required under this new section 140 would review the progress made in preparation and implementation of regulations referred to in subsection 140(1).

I want to ask the member, could she advise the House exactly what preparation of what regulations is being required here since there are none proposed in Bill C-33 for section 140, and whether these are not already covered by the general review required as to the environmental and economic aspects of biofuel production?